Kosovo: People Trafficking

Baroness Williams of Crosby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will seek to end the trafficking of women and young girls for the purposes of prostitution and the abuse of children for sexual purposes among KFOR and UNMIK personnel in Kosovo.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we shall seek to end this trafficking. Trafficking of people is an abhorrent crime, wherever and by whomsoever it occurs. In Kosovo we are working with our partners in NATO and the United Nations to establish robust preventive policies. Regulations prohibiting trafficking have been in force since 2001. We must be clear that KFOR troops, UNMIK personnel and others accused of trafficking will face justice. I welcome recent successful prosecutions of perpetrators of this crime.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister her powerful reply. However, is it correct that the provisions that were made and the regulations that were passed in January 2001 on behalf of UNMIK did make some provision for the support and protection of young women and girls who had been exploited by traffickers? My understanding is that very little action has been taken on that front. Will the Minister also give us further details of prosecutions under the regulations, because my understanding is that until two months ago there had been no prosecutions at all?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there have been two successful prosecutions of UNMIK police officers carried out by UNMIK police internal affairs in 2002 and 2003. I am afraid that we do not have figures relating to failed prosecutions. However, the noble Baroness may be interested to know that there have been investigations into more than 80 international peacekeepers since 1999. To date, at least 58 UNMIK police have been dismissed, 10 of whom were dismissed in connection with allegations of trafficking.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what avenues there are for civil redress as opposed to prosecution against UN-employed perpetrators? More broadly, will the Government resist American pressure to renew Resolution 1422, which preserves immunity from prosecution for war crimes?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we regard trafficking as a crime and, as such, it should be dealt with as a crime. Of course, UNMIK police and the trafficking and prostitution investigation unit look into allegations that are made. As I have already indicated to your Lordships, I do not have figures for how often those investigations are not successful.
	On the position of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1422, it is important to remember that the Security Council resolution does not provide impunity for persons acting in an official capacity. The text makes it clear that the obligation remains on the national jurisdictions of the state sending UN peacekeepers to prosecute any international crimes committed by those peacekeepers. We understand—although we do not share—the United States' concerns about the International Criminal Court. We are convinced that the Rome Statute does provide safeguards to avoid politically motivated prosecutions, which is the root of the United States' anxiety. However, it must be remembered that, although there is the UNSCR, that does not provide for impunity of any national.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, do the Government agree that the situation with regard to trafficking is almost as bad in Bosnia as in Kosovo? Can women still be bought and sold in the Arizona market in Brcko, in northern Bosnia? Will the Government use their uttermost endeavours to ensure that the traffickers are brought to justice in both countries?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the NATO response to the trafficking of women and children throughout the Balkans is that we have a great deal of work under way. We try to draw on the best practice of international bodies such as the United Nations, the OSCE and NGOs to develop appropriate policies for operations, training, education and awareness. We are aware that this problem is not limited to Kosovo, but I hope that my initial response to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was sufficiently robust to assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will do whatever we can to stamp out this scourge.

Baroness Goudie: My Lords, does the Minister understand that this is not just a question of the trafficking of women and young girls, but the trafficking of young boys, which is sometimes forgotten in this situation? Vital Voices and NGOs are doing vital work to warn people about trafficking and bring this matter to the fore.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do understand that. I also understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, framed her Question to cover women and young girls, but she went on to talk about the prostitution and abuse of children for sexual purposes, which I took to mean children of both genders. Of course, the means, practices and policies that we are introducing cover the abuse of all children; girls and boys.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a problem with trafficking not just to Kosovo but through Kosovo and Bosnia? What powers does UNMIK have in Kosovo to deal with the trafficking of women and children through, rather than to, that country?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as far as I am aware, UNMIK has the same powers if the crimes occur through the territory as it does if they occur in the territory. The powers would be the same as if the crimes occurred within the territory itself, so they would be covered by the prohibition that has been in force since 2001.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, could I return to the Minister's Answer, in two respects? First, the prosecution of two people in the police force between 2001 and now seems a fairly small response to what appears to be a fairly widespread level of abuse and prostitution. Secondly, could I ask her again about the issue of support and protection? She will know very well, as many Members of the House do, that women, girls and boys who are exploited for prostitution and sexual purposes desperately need protection to get out of that trafficking, as they may be subject to a great deal of punishment from those involved. Are there are systems of protection available to young people and women trying to get out of that terrible trade?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, United Kingdom Armed Forces are bound by codes of conduct that set out a standard of behaviour, which I hope provides for the protection of those young people. Our Armed Forces are made fully aware of the codes prior to being deployed on operations and receive regular training on diversity and gender awareness. There is also a "no walking out" policy for KFOR personnel in Kosovo.
	It is important to remember that this is not just a question of prosecutions that I was able to detail for the noble Baroness. That was why I made such a point of saying that there had been 80 investigations of international personnel since 1991. They do not all result in prosecutions. Sometimes, those people are sent back to their home countries and are prosecuted there. The noble Baroness should not for a moment think that those two prosecutions are the sum total of prosecutions, because a number of individuals would have been sent back to their home countries.
	It is only fair that I add that no United Kingdom personnel in Kosovo have been implicated in offences relating to human trafficking and no investigations are outstanding. In all fairness, I should like to get that point on the record.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as the Minister has mentioned our British Armed Forces, can she confirm that no British military personnel and no one connected with British military personnel is in any way implicated with this disgusting trade?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to expand on the answer that I have just given. It is a fact that no UK personnel in Kosovo have been implicated in offences relating to human trafficking. There are no investigations outstanding. One individual was returned to the United Kingdom from Kosovo in 1999. That was, I understand, after visiting a brothel. That person was disciplined subsequent to a court martial. Three further individuals who visited an out-of-bounds bar in 2000 were disciplined for drunken behaviour.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister consider that enough is done to encourage the sustaining of relationships between KFOR and UNMIK personnel and family members in their home countries? Does she consider that there is sufficient rotation of personnel to foster those relationships?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, what happens to personnel when they are separated from their home base and their families for any length of time is always a difficult question. Far greater attention is paid to this issue now than was the case a few years ago, and in general governments recognise their responsibilities to try to ensure that individuals serving overseas in whatever capacity are able to keep in touch with their families. I shall try to be more specific in a letter to the noble Earl. However, I hope that he will be encouraged to learn that in the Armed Forces, for example, arrangements are made to enable telephone calls home on a regular basis and the exchange of e-mails with those loved ones at home, to ensure that those family connections are reinforced.

Tax Avoidance

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there is agreement among the Governments of the United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Australia as to the definition of "abusive tax avoidance", against which those Governments are launching a joint initiative.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one of the clearest definitions of tax avoidance was suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, in the Tax Law Review Committee in 1997. He defined it as,
	"action taken to reduce or defer tax liabilities in a way that Parliament plainly did not intend or could not possibly have intended had the matter been put to it".
	While the expression "abusive tax avoidance" is one used by the United States, Australia and Canada, the phrase does not appear anywhere in the UK tax code. The joint initiative recently announced by the Government is to build on rules obliging promoters of avoidance schemes to disclose them to their revenue authorities, with emphasis on those that have an international dimension.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clarification. I had not picked up on the fact that, although the United States, Canada and Australia use that term, Her Majesty's Government do not. Would he confirm that there is an important line between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion? Talk about abusive tax avoidance seems to blur the line, unless one intends to make abusive tax avoidance illegal.
	Will the Minister confirm, too, that this marks another step in the internationalisation of anti-tax avoidance policies? We have had the Financial Action Task Force on offshore financial centres and other such areas. Her Majesty's Government are in some ways following the United States in international actions on harmonisation of tax policy of one form or another, while resisting, as a matter of sovereignty, the closer co-operation among tax authorities within the European Union.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is right to make the distinction between tax avoidance, which is legal, and tax evasion, which is illegal. As to whether we are following the United States, that is a rather different question. This is a four-country initiative and, for the next two years, it happens to be located in Washington DC. This Government are very firmly in favour of it, as can be seen from Clauses 290 to 302 of the Finance Bill currently before the House of Commons. I hope that it has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It is important that we should stop the far too prevalent abuse—I shall not use the word "abusive", but I nearly did—when very highly paid lawyers and accountants find ways to deprive the Revenue of moneys that Parliament would wish to go to the Revenue and to us.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the sub-committee of this House dealing with the Finance Bill is examining this very question and spending quite a lot of time on it? Tax avoidance schemes that are deliberately designed to use loopholes that they find and establish are a problem. Will my noble friend accept that there is a case for trying to co-ordinate with other countries some of the activities that we are undertaking in this country?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I am aware of the work of your Lordships' committee and I can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, said about the need to co-ordinate activities, starting with those that have an international dimension. Clearly, one of the most obvious ways of avoiding tax is to hide behind a different tax jurisdiction. It is in the common interests of the four countries that I have named to act together to try to diminish that.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, would the Minister like to tell the House whether any conversations have taken place with the Government of Switzerland, who have a rather different view of tax evasion and tax avoidance?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not going to express a view about Swiss law on tax evasion and tax avoidance any more than yesterday I was prepared to be an expert on Belgian law. Certainly, there have been discussions with the Government of Switzerland, particularly on the issue of disclosure as an alternative to a withholding tax. I understand that those discussions are going rather well.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in those EU countries where the dividing line between tax avoidance and tax evasion has become blurred, one of the effects has been to make tax evasion more socially acceptable? Will he say what the Government will do to avoid falling into that trap?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that I can agree with that assertion. In effect, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is saying that some European countries do not have adequate tax laws. It is not my position to confirm or deny that. Certainly, as far as we are concerned, the distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion is perfectly clear.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister explain why these four countries are a white Anglo-Saxon group? Would it not have been more appropriate to do this on a G7 basis or with the same group of countries that are involved in the Financial Action Task Force?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that may well be the case in the future. We have just started with four countries that happen to have a common interest, and that is particularly so between the United States and this country where very substantial resources devoted to tax avoidance use the international dimension. If this works, and I hope it does—I hope the whole House hopes that it does—there is no reason why it should not be extended beyond the four countries that have started it.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, would the Minister agree that if there were fewer taxes to avoid, there would be less tax evasion? It would save the Government having people rushing round, trying to find out what is being avoided.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I would not agree. The public services in this country, which are rightly provided for by tax revenue, need to be preserved and enhanced. If the price to be paid for that is clever people trying to avoid taxes, then it is our duty to try to overcome that.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, as this discussion has developed, I am getting more and more concerned about the distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Would the Minister confirm that citizens should not be liable for any more tax than legally required and that they are entitled to order their affairs so that their tax liability is minimised. If they resort to illegal means to order their affairs, then, of course, that makes them liable. Can we be quite clear on this issue?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course, we are clear. As I have said more than once this afternoon, there is a firm dividing line between evasion and avoidance. The thrust of the work being carried out by the four countries, and the thrust of the clauses in the Finance Bill, is not to make illegal that which is legal but to encourage and, indeed, oblige promoters of avoidance schemes to disclose them to their revenue authorities. In other words, it is to strengthen the hand of the Revenue in anticipating schemes that affect it in a way—to quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, again—
	"that Parliament plainly did not intend or could not possibly have intended had the matter been put to it".

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there was something in what the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said and that the lower tax rates are, the less incentive there is for evasion or avoidance? In that context, I welcome the very interesting Written Answer he gave me yesterday on tax rates in all EU countries, which showed that the top tax rate in the UK compares extremely favourably with many other EU countries. I congratulate the Government for maintaining the 40 per cent rate introduced by my noble friend Lord Lawson in 1988 and remind the House that if the 98 per cent tax rate, which was in force when my noble friend Lady Thatcher was elected, were still in force, even adjusting for inflation, it would cut in, from his own Answer, at £86,000 a year.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not always read in detail the Answers that I give to Written Questions, but on this occasion I did, with considerable fascination. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that it was very interesting. It was a bit difficult to interpret as the thresholds operate against different levels of top tax rates. It took me some time to understand it, but it does not lead me to support the contention of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. There are people who will try to avoid taxes for perfectly legal reasons and who will try to circumvent the wishes of Parliament at whatever level of taxation Parliament sets.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister keeps telling us the difference between evasion and avoidance. Does the Inland Revenue see any difference between them?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, it prosecutes evasion when it finds it and it seeks to circumvent—if I may use the word in both directions—avoidance when it finds it.

MoD: Communications Department

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I remind the House of my peripheral interest.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the rationale for the recent reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence's communications department.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the MoD is a unified department and operates on a tri-service basis. The changes are intended to bring the communications organisation into line with the rest of the headquarters structure, and ensure that our military and civilian manpower is best utilised. The changes will also improve the department's ability to communicate effectively with the media.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is the priority to meet the needs of the Armed Forces or to meet the needs of the Government?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Armed Forces.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the noble Baroness make a distinction between a radio communication mast of the Ministry of Defence and a wind turbine? The Ministry of Defence has a blanket objection to the erection of all wind turbines on the basis that they interfere with low-flying aircraft, yet its radio communication masts, which are very similar in many ways, present, I should have thought, the same problem. Can the noble Baroness make a distinction?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to table a Question on that subject but today I am answering a Question about the reorganisation of the MoD's communications organisation.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, following the Minister's reply to my noble friend, the good reputation of our Armed Forces is partly due to their informal contacts with the media. Does the noble Baroness agree that a free press in a free society is vital? If she does, surely plans to ring-fence service personnel from the media to protect the Government are quite wrong.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I think there is some misunderstanding here. The reorganisation of the communications department will not stop the media being able to talk to military personnel at any level; that will continue. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Astor: we fully recognise that the media have an appetite for briefings with and by military officers. We further recognise the benefits for defence of that continuing. Military briefings will continue in operational theatre and the media will continue to be granted access to senior and junior members of the Armed Forces.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the rationale was financial rather than, as has been alleged in the press quite recently, due to political annoyance with the MoD's communications department's briefing of the press?

Baroness Crawley: Absolutely not, my Lords. The changes will improve the department's ability to communicate effectively with the media as well as, as I said in my original Answer, bringing into line the communications part of the MoD with the other joint working sections of the MoD. The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Michael Walker, said of the changes:
	"I am satisfied that the MoD's media operation, in common with the rest of the MoD, reflects the pattern".
	The pattern is that nowadays most military operations are organised on a joint—that is, tri-service—basis. The revised arrangements should meet the needs of defence and represent a professional and coherent military view.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will the reorganisation prevent unauthorised members of staff having unauthorised communications with the media, which has led to so much trouble over the past 12 months?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. In future all media inquiries will be channelled through the department's press office, which will, of course, have a strengthened military representation within it as a result of the changes. There will be a one-stop shop, if you like, for media inquiries.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, will local newspapers make inquiries of district and brigade local headquarters?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as I understand it, the same access will still be available, but certainly initially it will be through the press department. There will not be, as it were, an inability for local newspapers to find out whatever they want to find out—the channel will just be different.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Lord Grocott: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Wright of Richmond set down for today shall be limited to four hours and that in the name of the Lord Joffe to two hours.—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Lord Wright of Richmond: rose to call attention to the current priorities in Her Majesty's Government's conduct of foreign and commonwealth affairs; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I would first like to thank the long and distinguished list of noble Lords who have decided to take part in this debate. I particularly welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, has decided to take this opportunity to make his maiden speech. I know how much we are all looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
	I have deliberately worded the Motion to enable your Lordships to cover a wide spectrum of international affairs this afternoon, and to give you the opportunity to state where you think the Government's international priorities should lie. Perhaps I may, not for the first time, express my regret at the decision, for the last few years, to bracket foreign affairs with defence and overseas development in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I hope very much that business managers will reconsider this in the future. Closely linked though all these issues are, bracketing them together in one debate has simply not given ample scope for a full discussion of foreign affairs—a subject in which this House has a unique repository of expertise, shortly to be reinforced by the very welcome introduction of my friend and colleague, Sir John Kerr.
	It is perhaps worth emphasising the inevitable gap between setting priorities and sticking to them. We have only to recall the exceptionally high priority that President Bush promised to give to his relations with Mexico within weeks of his inauguration, before the events of September 11 changed the Administration's priorities so dramatically. International affairs, unlike domestic affairs, are never under the sole control of any one government—even a superpower like the United States. Foreign policy problems tend to leap out of the dark and to threaten the priority given to even the most carefully considered and long-term strategies.
	Nor can any government conduct their foreign policy without taking into account the interests and priorities of other governments including, of course, their friends, partners and allies, and their commitments to those many international organisations, including the United Nations and NATO, of which the United Kingdom is a member. In that connection I might remind your Lordships that we shall next year be holding the presidencies of both the Group of Eight and, for the last six months, the European Union.
	There is also an increasing temptation for governments to allow the media to set their priorities for them, with the risk that important, but forgotten, issues tend to be given insufficient, if any, priority. Without claiming any great prescience, I remind your Lordships that in a speech which I made in this House almost exactly nine years ago, I warned of two so-called "forgotten areas of the world" that had no prominence at the time, but which later turned out to cause a great deal of trouble and attention; namely, Afghanistan and Liberia.
	Some of your Lordships may wish to use the opportunity of this debate to draw attention to some other areas of the world which are today in danger of being forgotten. Indeed, I wonder whether the priority that the Government are inevitably giving to current troubles in Iraq may not be in danger of putting both Afghanistan and the Balkans back on to the "forgotten" list.
	Setting priorities also carries with it the inescapable need to give some issues a lower priority, which governments may later come to regret. We have only to note recent complaints by Christian Aid that security needs in Iraq, and for counter-terrorism, are diverting much needed and promised aid from the poorer countries.
	I am not arguing that priority setting is pointless. As I know from my former role as accounting officer of the Diplomatic Service, it is an inevitable part of preparing the departmental case for the public expenditure round. One of the difficult challenges for the Foreign Office accounting officer is to ensure that the requirements for the BBC World Service and the British Council are carefully balanced with the requirements of the Diplomatic Service.
	The world has never been more dangerous than it is today. It is as important as it has ever been that the network of diplomatic posts worldwide should be properly resourced, both to fulfil their essential role in public diplomacy, in which they must work closely with the British Council, and to ensure their security. As we resource our Armed Forces and our development programmes, we also need to think carefully about the priority that we attach to getting our diplomacy right. One of the disastrous mistakes of United States policy towards Iraq was to leave all the planning, such as it was, in the hands of the Pentagon and to exclude the diplomats and those who had first-hand experience of Iraq. This is a time for more diplomacy, not less.
	As for priorities, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, as I am sure the Minister will, to the excellent booklet produced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in December last year, entitled UK International Priorities. Although that document is subtitled:
	"A Strategy for the FCO",
	I am told that it was drawn up only after full consultation with other government departments, in an attempt to establish consensus on where the whole Government's international priorities should lie. Not surprisingly, the FCO's paper concludes that our relationship with the United States will continue to be our most important individual relationship and a vital asset, and that the relationship between Europe and the United States will be of paramount importance for the United Kingdom's—and the world's—future security and prosperity.
	I hope that we shall hear from noble Lords this afternoon some views on our relations with the United States and with the European Union. On the latter, we have recently had good debates in the House, both on the constitutional treaty and on the European Court of Justice. The Government may argue that we do not have to allocate priority between the transatlantic alliance and Europe, as we can claim to be a bridge between the two. Sadly, the history of our involvement in Iraq over the past year has shown that the Government, in my view unwisely, have put an excessive priority on at least appearing to stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies, with some damage to our stated goal of remaining at the centre of the European Union.
	I have already quoted one previous intervention of mine. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I also quote from a passage in my speech in a debate on foreign affairs which I similarly had the privilege of introducing in this House more than six years ago. It has a certain resonance in present circumstances. Having rejected the French description of our relationship with the United States as that of an Anglo-Saxon Trojan horse within the walls of Europe, I continued that,
	"it is important, if our relationship with the United States is to add substance and value to our membership of the European Union and vice versa, that we do not give the impression—as I fear has too often been the case in the past—that we are prepared to give uncritical support to all American policies. Nor is that the way in which we can hope to influence the United States Administration or Congress".—[Official Report, 28/1/98; col. 235.]
	I do not think that I can better that warning, particularly in the light of our current policies in the Middle East. It may have come as a surprise to your Lordships that I have not concentrated, in my introductory speech, on Iraq or the wider Middle East—partly because I wished deliberately to broaden the agenda for the debate, and partly because we quite recently had the benefit of the excellent debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. All I wish to say today on that vital area of the world is that I believe that the United States has made a fundamental and dangerous error in failing to put the highest priority on pushing forward the peace process in the Middle East, in spite of personal assurances by President Bush in Belfast that he would do so.
	It was, in my view, a disastrous error to have given higher priority to Iraq—which, as we all now know, had nothing to do with the events of September 11—than to the problem which lies at the hub of much of the instability in the Middle East, and of Arab and Muslim mistrust of the West. It is not, of course, just a question of adopting an even-handed negotiating approach vis-à-vis Israel and the Palestinians, although that has sadly been lacking in United States policies. We also need to find ways of encouraging both Palestinians and Israelis, who have a shared and genuine interest in peace, to renounce violence and to find a way forward in negotiation.
	I hope that the debate may provide an opportunity for noble Lords to make some practical suggestions. Most of all, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that Her Majesty's Government continue to put the highest priority towards ending the unacceptable violence and killing of innocent civilians by both sides; and towards achieving a comprehensive and just settlement for the future security of Israel, and for the creation of a genuinely viable Palestinian state, in close co-operation with our European partners and other members of the quartet.
	A solution to the Palestinian problem is not only vital in itself, as a means of alleviating the suffering, deprivation and insecurity which it is causing for all concerned. Our own policies towards the Arab-Israel dispute will affect, for better or worse, the extent of mistrust and bitterness towards the West which the unresolved horrors of Palestine and Iraq are likely to leave in Arab and Muslim minds for many years to come. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen: My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to address the House for the first time, so I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright, for his initiative and congratulate him on securing the debate. He and I know each other well. We had the pleasure of being together on the British Council board for a few years when he was Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office. We also had the memorable distinction of participating in the only vote in that board's history, and finding ourselves on the losing side when it chose to go to Manchester instead of Glasgow for its new headquarters.
	I am also delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is winding up the debate, not only because she is one of the most eloquent and effective members of the Government, but because I had the advantage of having her for a very brief period as my deputy at the Ministry of Defence. That was before I was moved out of Parliament, out of the Cabinet and out of the country and given a new name. It is known in the United States as the witness protection scheme, but it was to NATO that I went, which precluded me for obvious reasons from speaking in this House since then. I thank noble Lords for the warmth of their welcome and the depth of their understanding about why I was not here for so long.
	The four years in which I held the position of Secretary-General were remarkable, dramatic and in many ways unpredictable—events, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright, has said, out of the dark. I went in there in the aftermath of Kosovo, four years after the intervention in Bosnia. We had a potential bloodbath in southern Serbia in early 2001 and then a near civil war in Macedonia later in that year; and, of course, on September 11 the whole world was turned upside down.
	In February of last year we had a crisis in the alliance over giving help to Turkey under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty. I was responsible at the time for the decision taken for NATO to go into Afghanistan and the decision in principle, unanimously taken last year, to support Poland as it took responsibility for a multinational division in Iraq.
	NATO is a very different organisation from the one I went to in October 1999. There are seven new members of the alliance, three of them part of the Soviet Union only 15 years ago; new relationships on paper and in practice with the European Union; a new equality-based council with the Russian Federation; new capabilities for the new world that we live in—a new command structure and a new Supreme Allied Command transformation to bind together the armed forces of America and Europe; a new NATO response force designed for the challenges of the future; a new commitment to getting the right capabilities for tomorrow's challenges and not for yesterday's enemies; and new roles in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
	So, NATO is an international organisation that went through a transition, faced the challenges and made the changes, both internally and externally. I believe that it has faced the challenges of terrorism proliferation and of failed states and that it is better equipped than ever before.
	A T-shirt was presented to me in Colorado Springs last September at a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers. It was in exchange for a bottle of fine 17 year-old Islay malt whisky—so that killed the stereotype of the mean Scotsman for ever. But the T-shirt was a very important memento. On the back was the emblem of the ministerial meeting and on the front was the slogan, "This ain't your daddy's NATO". I was very proud of that T-shirt. I have not yet found the circumstances to wear it, but the legend is important and NATO is there.
	NATO is one of the most important organisations that we have been involved in and are members of now. It is a huge bargain for the money that we spend, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give a commitment on behalf of the Government that, at long last, the United Kingdom Government will stop putting a block on enlarging the NATO budget, which they, like the French and German Governments, have conspired over the years to keep at record lows. I believe that NATO is the one multinational organisation in the world where the United States Government want to spend more money, but are prevented doing so by certain governments—and the British Government could take a lead.
	I have one reservation about many of the things that we did during my time at NATO—my worry and my concern as a passionate Atlanticist and a passionate European integrationist over the lamentable record of the European powers in sharing the security burden with the United States of America. Unless the European countries spend more money on defence—and spend it more wisely—then it will be impotence and not influence that results from the transatlantic relationships. We need more deployable troops; we need more big planes; we need more precision weapons; and we do not need the heavy metal armies that were useful, if they were useful at all, against the Soviet Union in a bygone day.
	Perhaps I may say a word in conclusion—I am told that I must limit my speech to six minutes. I know that someone was once quoted as saying, "If you can't say what you need to say in 20 minutes, go away and write a book". To crystallise one's views in six minutes is difficult, but not, I hope, impossible.
	I do not think that, in this brief time, it is either appropriate or necessary to revisit the arguments regarding, "Why Iraq? Why now?". I supported the invasion then and I support the principle of it now. An evil man in the region and in the world has been disposed of. The world is a better place, although it will be tough to get through. But the issue of "the now" is more urgent than the argument about "what if?". I think that there are too many stakeholders in failure, and yet there are so many people in Iraq who are stakeholders in success. In the next four weeks, as the leaders of the world meet next week in Normandy, the following week at Sea Island in Georgia, then at the European Union summit, and then in Istanbul at the NATO summit, I hope they will focus on how best we can safely find a way to hand over authority to the Iraqis themselves—because, be assured, if we do not sort Iraq then Iraq will come and sort us. That is the lesson of history and I hope that we learn it.
	Those who have doubts about whether that is possible might care to go to Sarajevo and talk to another Member of this House who is on leave of absence at the moment—to Paddy Ashdown, who I visited on a number of occasions and who is doing a brilliant and successful job there. It is not yet nine years since the massacre at Srebrenica, but we have gone from the killing fields of Srebrenica to the Eurovision Song Contest for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Not many people would have made that prediction in 1995, when we intervened there.
	So, let us be optimistic. Let us try to look at the long game and take the tough decisions now. World leaders will be on the spot and we must all wish them well.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, by a strange coincidence I have the privilege of following an outstanding maiden speech, exactly as I did on 14 September 2002, when I followed the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown. So my pleasure in welcoming the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, is amplified by the fact that he has set a marvellous sequel to the pattern set by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown.
	I have known the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for long time and he was one of my opposite numbers during my time at the Foreign Office. In particular, I remember the occasion when he had to respond to my rather startling and disturbing announcement about the shooting of three IRA men in Gibraltar. That was a very confused occasion. I was not able to give him the Statement until five minutes before I made it—and it was quite different from what it had been an hour before. He might have responded in any number of opportunistic ways, but he responded with robust, candid support, which I have always valued.
	I remember also, perhaps particularly as a Welshman, his joint handling, as shadow Scottish Secretary, with my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, of the tragedies of Dunblane. Their joint management of that terrible episode did great credit to our political system on both sides, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, played a very large part in that. So nothing has surprised us about his subsequent record, his distinguished service as Secretary of State for Defence and, of course, in NATO, during the four years that we have been missing him in this House.
	The noble Lord closed by making exactly the right points, based on that experience, and I underline his encouragement to our European partners to begin playing a much more serious role in fortifying ourselves effectively to play the part that we ought to. His advice on that and many other issues will be enormously welcome and I congratulate him most warmly on behalf of the entire House.
	It is also a pleasure to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, because we, too, have had a significant partnership over many years. He opened this debate with the authority and clarity that we have come to expect of him and I underline absolutely one of his most important points—the need for us to have, as a nation playing a proper part in the world, a Diplomatic Service that is properly resourced and whose advice and wisdom is properly respected. Both are equally important.
	I depart from the noble Lord's pattern of priorities, because it is some time since I have spoken on the topic of foreign affairs in this House for reasons with which I need not trouble noble Lords. I want to say something in particular about the consequences of what has been happening in relation to Iraq over recent years. I shall focus much more critically than I would have wished on the performance of the United States, as well as on the entire pattern of our own reactions to what was happening—my reaction and the world's reaction. We failed to judge correctly the anger with which the United States, and its leaders, was likely to react to an event of hugely provocative and humiliating significance in its history.
	I look back on my own advice, and perhaps I may follow the noble Lord's example of quoting from one of my own speeches. On 14 September 2001, I said clearly that robust action in self-defence was justified, but only if three conditions were fulfilled and that,
	"it is essential to be sure, or as sure as one can be, that the evidence of guilt is equally robust";
	it is essential,
	"to sustain the unflagging long-term unity of international support that will be essential to success";
	and it is essential to give,
	"a renewed commitment to tackle even-handedly both sides of the Middle East conflict, which fuels and exacerbates the hostility towards the United States".—[Official Report, 14/9/01; col. 26.]
	Each of those points, if they were important then, can be seen to be even more important now.
	Perhaps we made the mistake of believing that we were dealing with the United States after the self-restraint it had showed on so many occasions during the years of the Cold War. We supported it, quite rightly, in the actions it took against Afghanistan; but with much less wisdom and enthusiasm over what happened in Iraq.
	Most tragically of all, the ultimate aim became regime change—but not so much regime change as regime destruction with little, if any, consideration of what was to replace it, save for much rhetorical commitment to democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, pointed out how successful that has been in the Balkans, thanks to great good fortune and wisdom there. In many other countries around the world, one has seen how hard it is to construct anything resembling a democratic system of government.
	One can look at the history of Iraq and the description of it given by King Faisal I after he had been in office for some 10 or 12 years. He said:
	"There are still no Iraqi people . . . they are devoid of any patriotic ideas, connected by no common tie, prone to anarchy, perpetually ready to rise against any government whatever . . . the immensity of efforts required to tackle these troubles can only be imagined".
	The history of tyranny which followed in the later years shows how huge was the task to which so little consideration was given. The truth is that so far it has done nothing to enhance the stability of the region. On the contrary. It has done nothing to prevent the spread of terrorism and the task has been made infinitely more difficult by the repeated rhetorical emphasis of the conduct of a "war on terror", which confuses rather than simplifies the task facing us.
	We come to the exit from the situation of great complexity in which we now find ourselves. I have only one observation to make on that in the limited time available. As regards what happens now and in the weeks and months ahead, as my right honourable friend Michael Howard pointed out, and was justified in doing so, this country is entitled—indeed, it is under a duty—to insist on the advice which it gives being harkened to and, above all, to a much more positive response to our advice in tackling the difficulties of establishing some form of tolerable self-governance in Iraq.
	That advice was summed up a week or two ago in an article in the Financial Times by Professor Anthony Lake, President Clinton's national security adviser for four years. This comes from someone of authority in that country:
	"Real internationalisation of the political authorities and the security forces is desperately needed now. That means more than asking the United Nations and NATO to help. It means actually transferring real power and authority to a UN-authorised international mission and a NATO-led security force".
	That that should be the objective is surely now clear beyond doubt. That it will be extremely difficult to achieve is, tragically, equally clear. We may well be carrying a burden more direct than we would wish for longer than we would wish. All the more reason for our advice to be clearly given and for it to be listened to with respect, as it ought to be.

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, the great wealth of your Lordships' House is to be found in the extraordinary breadth and depth of experience which is brought to debates by its Members. It was never better exemplified than by my three predecessors today: the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, to whom we owe the conduct of the debate; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon; and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. I speak not only for myself but also for my colleagues on these Benches when I say that it is a delight to hear him in this Chamber and to be able to look forward to many more illuminating contributions out of his experience and understanding of wider world affairs and the place of our country in them.
	The terms of the debate were set out not only in the wording of the Motion but also in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. He said that this was an opportunity to pull back from the immediacy of some of the particular and serious problems before us and to take a wide-angle lens to our conduct of foreign affairs and foreign policy. Surely the purpose of a foreign policy is summed up in three simple notions. First, it is to defend the welfare of the citizens of our country from external threats and from any internal threats consequent on them. Secondly, it is to facilitate citizens and our private, public and national institutions in promoting their legitimate interests—economic, social, cultural or otherwise. Thirdly, it is to maintain and benefit the good name of the country. That assists all of us, our citizens and our public institutions, in achieving all those things.
	There can be little doubt that these are appropriate and reasonable aims. The eight strategic policy priorities set down by the Foreign Office sum them up and are perhaps a little wider. But the problem is whether any particular policy delivers what it sets out to do. Looking back over the past four years, it seems that the citizens of this country are not now more secure whether at home—even within the confines of the Palace of Westminster, as we were recently reminded—or travelling abroad.
	In conducting our affairs—economic, social, cultural, educational or otherwise—we are not better off than we were four years ago. Many parts of the world are more antagonistic towards us, our country and our citizens. Sadly, I fear that the good name of our country is not held in such high esteem as it was some years ago. Therefore, it is not a question of whether the aims of policy priorities are good, but whether they deliver what they set out to deliver.
	This is lamentable. I use the word cautiously but with emphasis because the deterioration in our world is serious and could well get worse. Many of the great strengths of this country have been set to one side. The history of moving from an imperial past to a commonwealth of nations is remarkable. We often forget how remarkable, virtually singular, the achievement is. Perhaps one of the greatest achievements in foreign policy over the past century is that a once imperial power was able to have such extraordinarily good, positive and onward-looking relations with former colonies.
	The development of the European Union, to which we have, perhaps in a slightly hiccupping fashion, made a contribution, is hugely important. From a parochial point of view, even in the past few years the contribution to peace around the world, particularly in Northern Ireland, has been a success, even if it has not completely delivered. It is a positive thing. The situation is better than it was.
	The standing of our judicial, journalistic and other institutions around the world was high but now it is not so high. Why is that? It seems to me that it is because we have forgotten some of the lessons. The first is that foreign policy is not a short-term issue; it is a long-term matter that requires sticking with one's approach through the ups and downs. There is a great tendency to overreact to immediate events and not to understand that the content of immediate events is far less important than the process of one's approach to dealing with the long-term issues.
	Whether it was the development of the Commonwealth, the building of the European Union or peace processes in places such as South Africa and Northern Ireland, or the development of our constitution and our courts and the whole ethos of our community, none came about by short-term reaction; they came about by long-term, slow, thoughtful and consistent building, characterised by integrity and respect.
	It seems to me that if we are to see success in the avowed aims that we set down in terms of policy priorities, we must be prepared to adhere to, and stick with, an approach to foreign policy characterised by consistency in the long term, respect in all our dealings and an integrity that shines through. I say in passing that we should not jump to the whim of a current administration, even when it is that of a long-term friendly country. Let us not be mistaken: many of our American colleagues do not feel that the current administration is following American interests. Precision and measurability of policy priorities is very fashionable, but it is far less important than wisdom in implementing the priorities.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that this is a four-hour time-limited debate. That is beyond the control of me or anyone else. Clearly, if everyone runs beyond the limit of six minutes per speaker, there will be very little time left for the later speakers. That is not a criticism of anyone; it is a statement of arithmetic.

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues, I join everyone in this House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, on a remarkable maiden speech. The combination of wit and wisdom, candour and expertise in six minutes meant that its impact was brilliantly focused. If he is able to give some of us on these Benches a few tips in creating sermons, we should be very glad to hear from him. I look forward very much to learning a great deal from the noble Lord in the years ahead and, again, I thank him most warmly.
	In the 1970s, I worked as religious education adviser in the diocese of Hereford, which meant that I was invited to schools to talk to sixth-formers. I was invited to a school in Telford, where the title of my talk, which was given to me by the school, was "This Man believes in God", the implication being that youngsters had better take a careful look at this particular specimen because I was doomed to die. I was a kind of theological and anthropological dodo.
	Noble Lords will be aware that, far from dying out, religious belief seems to have become an increasingly dominant element in our world. No strategy concerning priorities in foreign policy can be described as adequate if it fails to take seriously religious elements within both situations where there is conflict and those where peace is being created.
	As noble Lords will know, there are two distinct elements within interfaith activity. The first is dialogue between the faiths themselves. I take this opportunity to thank particular heroes in that field in this country. I think, for example, of Brian Pearce of the Inter Faith Network and Sister Margaret Shepherd and her colleagues at the Council of Christians and Jews. I now declare an interest: I am the national chairman of that council. It is a huge privilege because I am acutely aware of the unsung work that goes on in combating racism and increasing interfaith understanding on a daily basis.
	CCJ and similar organisations in this country are entirely dependent for their work upon voluntary, charitable giving. But if interfaith dialogue is a major contributor to social cohesion in this country, which it is, is it not possible for more government help to be given in supporting our work?
	Secondly, just as there is a need for dialogue between the faiths, so there is also a need for dialogue between the faiths and government. The instruments of that kind of dialogue at a national and regional level are at an early and unformed stage. But those mechanisms, too, will need significant government resource if they are to be effective.
	Noble Lords will know that Article 51 of the draft European Union Constitution speaks of,
	"open, transparent and regular dialogue",
	between EU institutions and the faiths. Whatever one thinks about that constitution—whether one is for or against it—the fact that Article 51 exists in draft form is evidence of the seriousness with which all European countries are taking religion in the 21st century.
	As a nation, we have a huge amount to be proud of in the way in which interfaith understanding has been created over many decades—in schools, hospitals and the voluntary sector—and, in truth, as a nation we have much good practice to share with European partners.
	I say all that about inter-religious and interfaith dialogue in this important debate about foreign policy because of the role that religions play in shaping our world. The religions that are talking to each other in the United Kingdom are the very same religions that are found elsewhere in the world. The religions that need to have dialogue with the Government in this country are the same religions which spread across the globe. Creating understanding in the United Kingdom is not separate from foreign policy; it should be seen as an integral and necessary part of it. If we can create understanding here, we may be able to model in this country ways of interacting between faiths and between faiths and government which can be developed elsewhere.
	At a practical level, it would be very good—perhaps this already happens—if officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could increase their dialogue with other parts of the government machinery, especially with the Home Office, in order to create a coherent, intelligent and well researched map of interfaith activity. Such a map would show not only what is going on in the United Kingdom, of which there is a great deal, but what is going on in Europe. Such a mapping exercise could then provide the foundation for a far more proactive stance, encouraging good interfaith relationships across Europe and the world and good faith/government dialogue in the United Kingdom, Europe and, again, across the world.
	The creation of understanding is the key to a peaceful world. It is my belief that religions must be a part of that process—a process which tries to create a world free of conflict. Of course, I recognise that it is a huge task, but if we who express our faith, whatever that may be, can play a significant role in that process and be resourced to do so, I believe that the benefits could be absolutely enormous.

Lord Parekh: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for proposing and brilliantly opening this extremely important and timely debate on foreign policy priorities. Before I make my own contribution, I want to say how much I enjoyed the witty and wise speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and how much I look forward to his contributions in the years to come.
	The foreign policy of any country, especially a great country such as ours, cannot be ad hoc or based on newspaper headlines or on tactical considerations and short-term expedience; it must be based on certain fundamental principles. I want to take the opportunity to suggest four basic principles which I believe must regulate the foreign policy of a country like ours.
	First, we must aim to create a just and peaceful world; a world that is stable and where injustices do not fester and make people so desperate that they are tempted to resort to terrorism in order to redress those injustices, and where human beings are able to lead decent lives. I regard that as one of the most important and central principles of our foreign policy.
	We have often expressed right sentiments on such acute conflicts as Israel and Palestine, but I am afraid that we have not been able to do very much, either because we got distracted by all kinds of short-term considerations or because we decided, for reasons I do not always understand, to rely a little too heavily on the United States and abdicated our responsibility for that part of the world.
	We have rightly taken some important initiatives in tackling economic injustices and poverty, especially in Africa. I welcome the new commission on Africa, though I regret that it has taken us several years to set it up. I very much hope that it will not end up simply making recommendations that might never be implemented.
	I also very warmly welcome the initiative that our Government have taken in pushing debt relief high up the agenda of international institutions, including several bilateral debt cancellations and increased developmental aid. However, my enthusiastic response to that is tempered by the fact that we have not done very much in democratising international financial institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank. Nor have we done much to render them transparent and accountable.
	That is so partly because we have not made economic justice our top priority and partly because we have not tried to mobilise progressive forces in our own society and elsewhere in the world. We need to link up with the many organisations that are actively struggling for economic justice, and make sure that we utilise their energies in creating a better and just world.
	My second principle is that we need to foster respect for international law and international institutions in a climate of global civility. That is not achieved by rhetoric and sermons, but by ourselves setting a good example. Much violence in the world arises because human rights are ignored. Obviously, we need to foster a climate in which human rights are respected, but we need to be careful about what that involves. Often that is presented as an attempt to export democracy. I cannot imagine anything more absurd and flawed than that. Democracy is not just a matter of constitution, it is a matter of institutions and culture. Those things take decades to develop. Rather, we should be thinking in terms of creating a regime of human rights and the rule of law and allowing them to exercise and generate their own momentum.
	In that context we have again begun to talk of humanitarian intervention. That is a commendable principle, but one that is always in danger of getting out of control if we ignore its grounds and limits. At all costs we should ensure that humanitarian intervention does not become a cloak for pursuing dubious national interests, or even a means of reshaping the world in our own image. In that connection I want to refer to some excellent work done in British universities by international relations experts, especially in Aberystwyth—where recently I was privileged to be elected as an honorary professor.
	The third principle has to do with what I shall call restoring a modernised version of the principle of balance of power; not the 19th century version, but a version that is appropriate to the 21st century. No single country should be allowed to dominate the world. That is neither in that country's interest nor in the interest of the world. We should aim to create multiple centres of power. Here I may sound like a French academic, but that is not the intention. The intention is that while having multiple centres which regulate each other, we should avoid the French mistake of thinking that each one should take a confrontational attitude to others.
	One of our goals should be a polycentric world in which these different centres work together to create a better and sensible world. We are ideally equipped to do that by virtue of our membership of the Commonwealth, of Europe, with our Atlantic connections and by virtue of the large empire which left us with a large number of friends and close connections in Africa and the Muslim world. I can think of no other country that is better equipped to be a bridge between different centres.
	Finally, I want to turn to the important question of good relations with the United States. Obviously, we have close ties with the United States and we must build on them. But we need to be careful how we define the special relations, how we pursue them and what price we are expected to pay for them.
	The United States is a vibrant democracy and speaks in many different voices. The voice that we currently hear is only one of them. If we identify too closely with that voice—namely the neo-conservative—alone, we are in grave danger of alienating many progressive voices in the United States. We should make it clear to the United States that we respect its great values and traditions and that it can count on our fullest support as long as it lives up to those values. But, should it ever fail to live up to those values, it can equally expect criticism—friendly, obviously, but nevertheless firm criticism from us. That is not anti-Americanism but the opposite; it is a way of urging that country to live up to its own great ideals and becoming its conscience.
	We constantly talk about being a bridge between the United States and Europe or having special relations. If we are not careful such metaphors can easily make us prisoners of an antiquated and rather foolish way of thinking. A great country cannot simply expect to hang on to the coat-tail of another; it has its own view of the world and should be pushing for that. Rather than be a bridge between this and that centre of power, ideally we should be thinking in terms of using our own initiative and bringing these various centres together.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, having spoken to your Lordships' House on the European Union, on the United Nations and on the Middle East in recent weeks, I am avoiding those well worn pastures and wish to speak on two countries, Cyprus and Iran, both of which I think should have a place in our priorities. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for having made this possible and enabling me to participate in a debate adorned by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen.
	When speaking about Cyprus I must clearly declare the fact that I was the Government's special representative for seven years, from 1996 until 2003. Nothing that I say on the subject now in any way represents the views of the Government, whose representative on this matter I ceased to be a year ago.
	The outcomes of the two referendums held in Cyprus on 24 April were sharply contrasted. In the north the Turkish Cypriots endorsed the UN Secretary-General's plan by 64.9 per cent; and in the south the Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan plan by more than 75 per cent. In the north Mehmet Ali Talat, newly installed as prime minister after the parliamentary elections of last December and backed by the AK party government in Ankara, turned the page definitively on the rejectionist policies of Denktash and persuaded his people to accept the loss of territory, the displacement of many thousands of Turkish Cypriots and the rapid reduction in Turkish troop presence for which the plan provided.
	In the south the administration of Tassos Papadopoulos, backed by Christofias, the leader of the communist party, took up the rejectionist baton which had been dropped by Denktash; and in so doing they ensured that the 9 per cent of territory on offer was not returned to the administration; that the tens of thousands of Greek Cypriots who would have returned to their property would not be able to do so; that Turkey's troop presence would not be reduced; and that there would be no cap on the number of Turkish mainland citizens who could come to the north and get Turkish Cypriot citizenship. One could truly say that the Greek Cypriots voted with their hearts while the Turkish Cypriots voted with their heads.
	That outcome, and the consequent stymieing of the Annan plan, was both a triumph and a tragedy for the UN, and for the international community which had backed its efforts so determinedly. To have brought more than 30 years of negotiations with two parties, which no one would describe as easy going, to the point where what was generally considered outside Cyprus as a fair and equitable set of compromise solutions was on the table was a major achievement in itself. To have overcome the doubts and opposition of the Turkish Cypriots and of Turkey, maintained for decades by Denktash, who had dominated the policy of both the north of Cyprus and Turkey, was little short of the miraculous.
	Was the rejection by the Greek Cypriots in any way justified? I do not believe so. No one who has read Papadopoulos's appeal for a "no" vote, which was a root and branch assault on the fundamental aspects of the Annan plan, not just a criticism of its latest iteration, can seriously believe that he had been negotiating in good faith for a settlement up to that moment. Nor did his behaviour at the last round of negotiations in Switzerland, when he refused to prioritise his list of desired changes and declined the smallest symbolic gestures of reconciliation to his Turkish Cypriot compatriots or to the Turkish Government, support that view. Driven by zero-sum calculations that compromises acceptable to Turks and Turkish Cypriots must by definition be detrimental to the interests of Greek Cypriots, he led his people into a strategic error that equalled those of 1963 when they hijacked the post-independence constitution and of 1974 when Archbishop Makarios was overthrown by force.
	What should happen now? It will be most interesting to hear the views of the Minister on that. In my view, it is important that the Greek Cypriots be left in no doubt of the real anger and disappointment throughout the international community at their decision. No one disputes their democratic right to take that decision; but people have to live with the consequences of their decisions. The Greek Cypriots have chosen to reject the views of the UN and of their new partners in the European Union. They can expect no support for their case and should get none. In March 2003, when Denktash torpedoed the negotiations, the Secretary-General and the whole international community made it clear that, until there was a change of policy, there was nothing more to talk about. That surely needs to be the same message now even if the destination is different.
	The Turkish Cypriots can reasonably ask that they should not be the victims of this setback; and yet it is they who are left in limbo outside the European Union. The immediate decision to pledge 260 million euros and the provision for trade across the green line will help the Turkish Cypriots, but what is now needed, surely, is to remove all discrimination against people who are, after all, citizens of the European Union and to prepare the Turkish Cypriots and their legislation and administrative practices for eventual European membership. What would not make sense would be to pursue Denktash's will of the wisp of recognition as an independent sovereign state. Every step by all parties now needs to be towards the Annan plan, which remains the only viable basis for a settlement, and not away from it.
	When Iran was discussed in this House last November, I suggested that we, and even more so our closest ally, the United States, needed to develop a more sophisticated and better articulated policy towards that country. So far the United States, while it seems to have moved a little away from the "axis of evil" caricature, regards Iran as little more than a potentially awkward neighbour to two countries—Iraq and Afghanistan—of greater security policy importance to it; and as the possessor of a highly suspect nuclear programme. But it is a country with 70 million inhabitants, exporting millions of barrels of oil a day, with its own security concerns; a country moreover which is most certainly not part of the Arab Middle East, to be somehow lumped in with that group. It surely needs to be addressed directly and on its own merits. It is hard to see how that can be done successfully without any contact or dialogue between it and the United States. If the Americans can talk to the North Koreans why on earth can they not talk to the Iranians?
	I have no illusions that the dialogue that we or the Americans may have with the Iranians will be straightforward or trouble free. We will have to talk about Middle East policy, about the nuclear programme, human rights and the treatment of women. But unless we can situate those difficult points within a wider framework that takes account of Iran's own security concerns, we will get nowhere. To do that should not be impossible. Iran has an important interest in the stability of its eastern and western neighbours; it is a key security player in a sub-region—the Gulf—of great importance to us and the Europeans. I would hope that, in the contacts we have with Washington at every level, we will be registering some of those points.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, if we had injury time to be used in these time-limited debates, I would use it several times over to express my appreciation for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, to wish him a happy time in the Chamber and to tell him that I remember with great affection with what tenacity he opposed the Single European Act in his days in the House of Commons.
	If I were in the House of Commons today, I would have voted against the invasion of Iraq. I say that so that the House may know from where I come. I would have done so primarily because I believed that, having invaded Iraq, we would find it immensely difficult, if not intractable, to extricate ourselves at some convenient and propitious moment. Well, I would be happy for the vanity of that judgment to be pricked. If the draft Security Council resolution is intended to start a process that will establish an effective Iraqi authority that will gainsay my fears, I will be only too happy. But at present, I travel with a great deal of anxiety.
	I take at once the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, that we must understand that the United States' whole psyche was shattered by the Twin Towers episode. It destroyed a sense of security and confidence that it has not yet repossessed and has led to some quite extraordinary behaviour on the part of the American Government which will prove damaging for the West and the Alliance.
	I shall make only three points. The first concerns the conduct of war. The great emphasis on technology, on aerial bombardment, added to the behaviour of the American infantry on the ground, is the conduct of war in such a fashion as to exclude totally the idea of winning hearts and minds.
	Secondly, there is the desire to build a society and constitution based on substantially Western concepts of human rights, law-making, law enforcement and legislature—the whole gamut—which are difficult enough for Western societies, let alone to be imposed on countries that have little in their traditions that pay regard to the origins that we have. I say that in no sense as making a value judgment; it is just a practical judgment. At times, President Bush sounds as though he is a born again Woodrow Wilson. That is one more difficulty to add to the plenty that we already have.
	My third point, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, to whom we are indebted for this debate, concerns the conduct of American policy on the Palestinian and Israeli dispute. The television screens, week in and week out, bring home to us the violence and near hopelessness of that dispute. I shall not here try to adjudicate blame, which would be a most fruitless task to entertain. But there is no doubt that what has happened across the Middle East, especially in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, is poisoning relations with the wider Arab world. We will not defeat Al'Qaeda by Western techniques, attitudes and weaponry. There is more to it than that. There is a battle for ideas in which, to take the point made by the right reverend Prelate, there is also an engagement of spiritual issues.
	When we consider that, it is a long haul. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, reminded us that, so often, the great issues in public policy are for the long haul. When I think of the recent few months, I think of Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Rafah and Guantanamo. They are all without doubt dragon's teeth that are being sown that will have a rich harvest of well armed hoplites, making the future infinitely more difficult than would have been the case if we had constructed the response to Al'Qaeda rather differently than has been determined by the Americans.
	I have no desire to enter into partisan political judgments on the matter but I will say this: I can feel friendlier towards old Labour than to the current Administration. Given how Harold Wilson dealt with Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnamese dispute, it seems that you could be good friends with America and still be a realist.

Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, on his maiden speech. I have known and admired the noble Lord for many years for his contribution to national politics and the arts, and to inter-allied bridge-building and international co-operation, while displaying the self-ironising yet authoritative manner that he showed today.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wright, would certainly agree with me that clarity of vision and a sense of proportion must be prerequisites to this groundbreaking debate, which he has so helpfully initiated.
	We are all agreed that the resumption of negotiations in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is very urgent; that a two-stage solution is inescapable; and that the bloodshed must stop. But I submit that it is an illusion to think that this conflict is the cornerstone of the battle against extremism and terror. It must be tackled pari passu with serious efforts to bring about reform and a radically changed mindset on both sides.
	On the Arab side, polemics about the Israel-Palestinian feud have served for far too long as an alibi for masterly inactivity in the domains of social, economic and political reform. The recent Arab League meeting in Tunis came up with no constructive solution. There is talk again of a renewed Saudi initiative. But how can we take that seriously, when Crown Prince Abdullah ascribed responsibility for the recent devastating terror acts in his kingdom to Zionist culprits? How seriously can we take Chairman Arafat's willingness to resume talks, when on 15 May he cursed the existence of the state of Israel and praised the martyrs of the intifada without condemning the terrorists? Were those just rhetorical flourishes destined for home consumption? In the glasshouse world of instant global communication there is no difference between internal and external pronouncements.
	It has been often suggested, perhaps with a side-glance at our own experiences in Northern Ireland, that talks can go on amid waves of terror, and that there must be no, or only minimal, retaliation. But the comparison is not valid. Not even the most ferocious member of the IRA would aspire to a solution beyond a united Catholic Ireland. Hamas and Hezbollah go for the jugular: the total extinction of the Jewish state and massacres throughout the Jewish world community. You cannot tell the mother who has lost four children through a suicide operation or young clerics who are assembling the limbs and innards of people murdered deliberately and purposefully—and not collaterally—that talks must go on regardless of continual attacks.
	On at least two occasions recently, I spent an evening with Israeli leaders, once with Premier Sharon and once with a prominent member of the left-wing Peace Now movement. Both meetings took place on the eve of a planned encounter with the Palestinian sides with the purpose of arranging an armistice. Yet on both occasions an aide rushed in during the meal and reported a major suicide attack. The intended meetings with the Palestinians were cancelled, and the public was crying out for strong action.
	I sincerely hope that Prime Minister Sharon will carry his cabinet next Sunday and succeed in pursuing his plan for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. I hope that he will do that without meaningful changes. I hope that he will also overcome resistance in his own party, and that petty party politics and career ambitions will not stand in the way. This plan deserves our support. The American President endorses it. Europeans and indeed some weighty Arab voices accept it, albeit with certain reservations. But it is a definite way of hoisting the road map from stony ground on to the conference table. Anyone who reads the Bush/Sharon correspondence very carefully and without bias will see that there is great scope for flexibility. Yes, it has a touch of the constructive ambiguity that so often in the history of diplomacy has allowed agreement to be reached with sacrifices on both sides.
	Do not misread or underrate Sharon's wish for renewed negotiations and willingness for major concessions. When General de Gaulle, on his return to power, first visited Algeria, he cheered the supporters of l'Algérie franc"aise. But the same de Gaulle chided them a few years later for still clinging to "l'Algérie du papa". General Sharon believed at one time in Greater Israel and masterminded the building of many settlements on the West Bank. But I am convinced that today what might have been desirable to him is no longer possible, and that this determined and stubborn warrior could well be the main agent of change in a direction that would ultimately lead to peace. Even if it were not given to him by fate to reach the last stretch of the road, he wants to tread it. I submit that we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
	In the remaining half minute, I wish to talk about a land where I have just been: the Ukraine. I remind noble Lords that that country will have vital elections on 31 October and an opportunity of electing a more democratic, decent and humane government. We should not, over our concern with the admission of Turkey to the European Union—which I consider to be vital in a geopolitical long-range context—forget the fate of a people of 50 million, drenched in European history and longing to be part of the European family of nations. If we could succeed in deepening our relations with Russia economically, culturally and through a military partnership with NATO, it should not be unrealistic to speak up for, and ultimately to achieve, the adhesion of a much tried and severely tested people.

Lord Brennan: My Lords, the situation in Iraq is of grave concern, in the short term and, even more so, the long term. The noble Lord, Lord Wright, has given us the opportunity today to carry out careful scrutiny of this problem and to speak about it with candour.
	The conduct of foreign affairs by this nation is based on two foundations. The first is to recognise and apply our national qualities: a sense of fairness and justice, a profound obligation to our armed services, and a commitment to help countries that need it to improve and, if necessary, re-establish themselves as a country. We value those qualities and are valued for them. The second foundation is the pursuit of our national interest, but in a way that serves our national reputation.
	Applying that analysis to the aftermath of the war in Iraq, three matters arise. The first is fairness and justice. The events at Abu Ghraib prison and the shocking images that we have seen should be the subject of the following by this country: first, to condemn it; secondly, to do so forcefully; thirdly, to call, from either the United States or this country, if criminal investigation shows it to be appropriate, for prosecution with efficiency and expedition. Why? All to show that our sense of fairness and justice is applicable to war. Can we rightly say that we have spoken out forcefully on this question so far?
	The second matter is safeguarding our soldiers. I have no military knowledge, but as a parliamentarian I am entitled to ask what is the plan, and where do we go next? As a parliamentarian I would strongly question any further expansion of troop numbers in Iraq or any significant alteration of our military role there unless the following conditions were satisfied. First, that such proposals had been fully discussed with, and agreed to by, as necessary, the general staff of our Armed Forces. Secondly, if there is to be such action, there should be an adequate supply of manpower and equipment. Thirdly, what is to be done must be indispensable, militarily as well as politically, and not capable of being done by anyone else. Lastly, there must be a properly thought out set of exit strategies. Our Armed Forces deserve nothing less. Have we achieved this sense of obligation in present circumstances?
	The third matter is promoting our national interest and protecting our national reputation. Yesterday, Richard Perle, no less, frankly conceded that an army of liberation had become an army of occupation. That is the reality, which even he has accepted. The way forward, in our national interest and for our national reputation, is to help Iraq to rebuild itself governmentally, institutionally, and economically, all within a system based on the rule of law. That would be consistent with the quality that I previously described by which we seek to help other countries.
	Each of these three—fairness, protecting our soldiers, and standing up for our national reputation—are interdependent. Damage to one can produce damage to all. I cannot see any feature of the needs of the coalition between this country and the United States that would prevent this country following these three objectives plainly and publicly. Indeed, if there were any restraint on it, that would call into question the nature of the coalition. I do not wish to criticise the United States of America. Her Majesty The Queen, on the visit of President Bush last November, said that we are strong allies and we usually agree; sometimes we disagree, and once in a while we fall out. That is the result of mature friendship.
	We should speak frankly, certainly in this House, when we need to. History will judge what is going on in Iraq by what Britain did to stand up for the values that I have described. I am sure that the Prime Minister and my noble friend the Minister are determined to achieve those values and will give us reassurance. That is what the nation expects.

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, in his excellent speech opening our debate today asked what are, or should be, our priorities. In my view, they should be to continue to remain alert against, and to deal with, the underlying causes of terrorism, and that means to deal with the Middle East situation, which is at the heart of terrorism. In the long term, the removal of Saddam will be seen to have helped against terrorism. Here and now, however, we are naturally much more concerned with what has been going wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not for a moment discount what has been achieved, sometimes against seemingly insuperable odds. There is no doubt that valuable progress has been made and much good has been done, but so much more would have been possible had the preparation been better and attitudes different.
	In Afghanistan, the warlords are again in the ascendant. They are benefiting from billions of dollars from poppies and from smuggling—and with that money comes power. With power comes ruthlessness and brutality; and it is the poorer people who suffer and for whom the hope of a more peaceful existence is once again destroyed. I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Biffen about appearing to be advocates of Western-style democracy. We should be wary of trying to foist our own pattern or system of government on those countries. I know that idea is fully accepted by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw who, in his admirable speech at the Foreign Policy Centre in March spoke of promoting,
	"good governance, human rights, tolerance and the rule of law".
	The precise system of government, and the ways in which people participate in it, should be for the people to decide. That must be the case for both Afghanistan and Iraq, but for that to happen the conditions must first make it possible. That means that we must understand their history and be sensitive to their traditions and customs.
	Caution rather than arrogance should be the guide, yet America seems to be following too closely the example of Israel. In fact, America is much too closely identified with Israel for its own good. Excessive, almost panicky use of force is no way to win hearts and minds or inspire confidence among the people who you claim to help. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred to the repulsive obscenity—my words, not his—of Abu Ghraib. That has savagely and sadly changed the landscape. It has been devastating for the coalition; it has been a tragedy for Iraq; it has been massively frustrating for British forces; and it must have caused the Prime Minister to wring his hands in despair.
	What, in these circumstances, should be the objectives of British policy? It must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright, indicated, first and foremost to restore calm and bring back the powers of diplomacy; to take account of the aspirations of the people of the region, who want food, water, housing, education, security, and the rule of law. That applies equally in Iran. I was interested in the speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. It is true that today in Iran there operates the tyranny of fundamentalism, which is stifling potential, especially that of the younger generation of men and women. They need to hear our voice; they need to hear more than Al-Jazeera; more even than CNN. They need to hear the voice of the BBC World Service, which does so much good. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies, she will indicate that the Government are determined to expand and develop that medium of communication.
	Of course we should stand firm in Iraq and see the process through, but who will decide? There are confused signals coming from America, from the British Government and from inside Iraq. If we are not to walk away now, who will decide when we should do so? On the wider front, clearly we must keep our forces strong, with the capacity for a quick and flexible response wherever a threat arises. That means remaining an active member of NATO, and it means avoiding being locked in to a bureaucratic European system. We should remain strong and steadfast, but not an uncritical friend of America, so that our role can continue to be a civilising influence in the world, where tolerance, individual freedom, and the rule of law can prevail.

Lord Weatherill: My Lords, despite the limit on speeches today, I will spend a few precious seconds in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, on his admirable maiden speech, and also the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, on initiating this debate on a Cross-Bench day. I have him to thank for sending me to numerous countries during the time of my Speakership, and I always remember his injunction to me that if all went well he would be very grateful, while if it all went badly he would utterly repudiate me. Looking back, I realise now that I was merely a visiting card for his ambassadors.
	I hope it is not necessary to spend time in reminding your Lordships that, like the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, I spent five formative years of my life in the Indian army. My regiment, the 19th Lancers, had a squadron of Sikhs, a squadron of Hindus and a Muslim squadron. I should like to be the first today to echo the congratulations of the whole House to the Indian people on their continued tradition of democracy and democratic elections. After the trauma of partition in 1947, who would have thought that a nation of 1 billion people, three distinct geographical regions and many different religions—Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Muslim and others—could conduct a general election with such efficiency and success, and achieve this with an electoral system of voting which has caught the attention and interest of the whole world?
	In his address to the nation after the general election last week, the outgoing Prime Minister, Mr Bihari Vajpayee said this:
	"Dear Countrymen, Elections to the 14th Lok Sabha are over. The voters have given their verdict. I accept the verdict . . . India is the world's largest democracy. It is always with the will of the people that governments have been formed—and changed. This power of democracy is a matter of pride for our country, something which we must always cherish, preserve and further strengthen".
	I know we all agree that the Indian people have justifiable pride in the recent election in their country.
	At partition in 1947, my regiment became part of the Pakistan army, and I have paid regular visits to it. Last year, I took my wife and she was charmed to be referred to regularly as "Bharbi". For those of your Lordships who do not speak Urdu, that is "brother's wife—your husband is our brother, so you are our sister-in-law". I join your Lordships in welcoming Pakistan's return to the Commonwealth family. Pakistan's geographic location means that it is a most important country in the present fight against terrorism and for global security and stability. I warmly welcome the Indian Government's promise to continue the peace process with Pakistan. It is important that this is not disrupted, delayed or derailed. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will press both Governments—India and Pakistan—to keep this process on track.
	We should also use our influence on our American allies to ensure that Pakistan is supported to the full in Afghanistan and in its efforts to eliminate terrorism in its own tribal areas. Pakistan's role in combating terrorism cannot be over-estimated.
	Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, said that it might be appropriate to mention other countries in this debate, other than Iraq and others with perhaps greater importance. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is in London this week, and I hope that some of your Lordships will come to meet him in Portcullis House this Friday and hear his speech. I declare an interest as patron of the All-Party Group on Tibet. I have visited his Holiness in Dharamsala, northern India, and in the process I have come to know him well. In our country, we seek to encourage the settlement of dispute by "parley rather than by the sword". His Holiness has told me that he is tending to lose credibility among the young Tibetan refugees, who feel that his support for this process is getting them nowhere, and that the world will not take notice until they are allowed to go back into Tibet and shoot up the Chinese. If ethical foreign policy means anything, it must mean active support for leaders who seek solutions to difficult problems by way of discussion and by peaceful means.
	His Holiness is meeting the Foreign Secretary on Friday. Unhappily, the Prime Minister is not able to see him on this occasion. I hope that one of the results of his visit will be the appointment of a special commissioner on Tibetan issues, as exists in the United States of America and the European Union, to facilitate a peaceful resolution of the problems and greater freedom for Tibetans in their own country. His Holiness seeks not independence but a greater degree of self-government and, above all, the end of the human rights violations to which the Tibetans are subjected in their own country. He deserves our full and active support.

Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. He has said one of the things that I wanted to say about the success of democracy in India. He also mentioned the welcome readmission of Pakistan into the Commonwealth.
	In such a debate and with so little time, one has two choices. Either one can concentrate on one aspect or one can spread oneself thinly. I shall start with a theoretical point: one can be idealistic in such a debate, as my noble friend Lord Parekh was, or one can be a realist, as my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen was in his excellent maiden speech. I intend to be realistic because I am pessimistic about the world being a good place in which to live either now or in the near future.
	I have already spoken on the Middle East, and I have said that I do not think that the Middle East problem is soluble. Until the two countries themselves decide that enough is enough and come to terms, no outside power will help. Indeed, every outside power hinders moves to a settlement in the Middle East. I point to the example of India and Pakistan. The agreement of that dispute, which is, perhaps, not as virulent as that in the Middle East, will be brought about by the two countries themselves. India and Pakistan always said—India definitely said—that they did not want to internationalise the dispute over Kashmir. They saw it as a dispute between India and Pakistan that would be solved as such. Although we can make the right noises, it is good that the great powers have kept out of advising and pressurising the two countries too much. That is why I believe that the agreement between India and Pakistan will, when it comes, be more deeply embedded than would an agreement arrived at through imposition by some sort of international troika or whatever.
	I supported the war in Iraq, and I need not apologise for doing so. However, as many noble Lords have done, I would dissociate us from the appalling things that have happened in Abu Ghraib. It is important to say that what has happened to prisoners in Abu Ghraib or in Guantanamo is not a part of British policy in the Middle East or anywhere else. We do not endorse such things, and we do not do such things. What is more, it is clear that, in America—I have just been there—there is not as much shock about it as one might have expected. Someone said to me, "This happens in our prisons all the time. What are people surprised about?". It does not happen in our prisons, and I hope that nobody will bring us photographs showing that such cruelty happens in our prisons. If it happens in American prisons, we must distance ourselves.
	We are America's friends. We are its friends in the Iraq operation, and we believe that it was a good thing to eliminate Saddam Hussein, as my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen said. However, we do not believe that it is necessary, subsequent to a human rights-based intervention, to violate human rights in Iraq. We must be careful to create that distance. When America refused to be part of the International Criminal Court, people wondered why. Now, it is absolutely clear why Americans will not be part of the International Criminal Court. I do not blame them. If their culture domestically is as much in violation of human rights as it happens to be—this is not news; there have been human rights studies done about that—it is quite clear that they cannot be part of the International Criminal Court.
	Given how powerful America is and how capable it is of doing good—I believe that it is capable of doing a lot of good—we have to draw a line somewhere in our friendship. I do not criticise the Prime Minister for being a very enthusiastic partner of America, but we have to draw the line somewhere, as my noble friend Lord Brennan said. We have to fall out sometimes, and this is a time to fall out.
	Many noble Lords have said that countries cannot be made democratic "like that" and that they become democratic on their own. That is a very strange doctrine in the light of history. Take, for example, Japan, Germany or Austria. Japan's reconstruction after the Second World War as a democracy is an example where it could easily have been said, "Oriental cultures cannot absorb democracy": or who would have expected that India would be a democracy? That is partly because of what happened in the independence movement and the influence of Gandhi, but also partly because the local roots of democracy were sown in India in a series of reforms from the beginning of the 20th century.
	Democracy can be exported. We should export it. The best thing that we can already export is patience.

Lord Bramall: My Lords, in this wide-ranging debate, it would indeed have been nice to put the past completely behind us and concentrate on that most difficult of all occupations, thinking deeply about the future. But we cannot ignore what sadly is still happening in Iraq. Not only must our exit strategy for the moment be our highest priority; unless we come to terms about what happened there, why it happened and draw sound conclusions, it is unlikely that we will tackle successfully the many problems, including terrorism, still emanating from that disturbed part of the world.
	In Iraq, having been given many different reasons and justifications for what we did and why we are there, which have since proved erroneous or counterproductive, we are being repeatedly told that the endeavour on which we are now embarked is to bring democracy to Iraq. One can but wonder what legal—or, now, even moral—mandate the coalition really has to do that, rather than to leave it to the Iraqis.
	Entering a country in support of a past UN resolution to seek out and destroy any weapons of mass destruction might have been one thing, but to remain in occupation in order to impose an alien political system and culture—when, if the Iraqis are united over anything, it is a rejection of the current occupation—is quite another.
	Of course, having brought Iraq to a state of manifest disorder, whatever our motives, it is not unreasonable to feel that the coalition ought to see the occupation through to a more benign conclusion. Certainly, handing over political power early would restore some legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world. It is to be hoped that that would make it much easier to involve the United Nations in some way.
	The trouble is that that also raises a dilemma. If the security situation is by then no better, it is doubtful whether such a government would survive; while, if the coalition forces remain to try to improve things, even under a UN label, they will almost certainly exacerbate the situation and make a coherent exit strategy more difficult.
	While coalition forces remain, they must work very closely with and at the behest of the Iraqi Government, who should indeed have the overall responsibility for security. Once we have decided to withdraw totally—in my opinion, in view of all that has been happening, that should be sooner rather than later—we would at least have the opportunity to start tackling the future problems in the Middle East in a different and, I submit, more sensible way. That would be more relevant to the terrorist threat and more sensitive to the views of the people and governments in the area.
	There may be some egg on faces—some of it deserved—and some destabilisation for the Iraqis themselves to sort out, which would perhaps concentrate on local aspirations and use a more federal administration for law and order. But I would prefer to heed the Suez precedent of quick withdrawal and soonest mended rather than reinforce with extra troops something which may not even be achievable. When General Braddock lay mortally wounded, ambushed in the forests of North America in the 1750s, he engagingly said, "Next time we will do it better".
	We really should know by now that, unlike naked aggression, terrorism cannot be defeated by massive military means, but by concentrating more on the twin pillars of competent protection and positive diplomacy. By protection, I mean building up our home and overseas intelligence, which would greatly reduce the risk to us and to others, and then, based on that intelligence, rooting out those planning and perpetrating criminal acts. In keeping up our guard, sensibly improving our physical protection and, of course, maintaining our morale, we could always be confident that, having done what we can to prevent those things happening, our many-sided society can handle and take in its stride, within the rule of law, whatever abominations may be thrown at us, as we have done in the past, and not be provoked into high profile but unproductive responses.
	The diplomatic pillar means listening, building commercial and cultural bridges, infusing rather than imposing values and ideas, helping friends help themselves and using only highly selective military force in co-operation with host nations or in the context of a UN mandate. If there are genuine key issues on which the mainspring motivation of terrorism thrives, diplomacy should help to address these as a matter of urgency.
	If there really is such a thing as a war against terrorism, we will certainly win it. We will do so by subtlety, by diplomacy and by using our brains and selective use of force, but certainly not by brute force.

Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for introducing the debate and, in particular, for generously contributing eight minutes of his time, which we on short rations eagerly need.
	Today, the world is faced with three large intractable problems; that is, world terrorism, Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I shall address the question of why the Israelis and Palestinians are making no attempt whatever to solve their problems by negotiation. Is it because they both have right on their side?
	The Palestinians are in the right because, first, they have lived in the old land of Palestine for more than 1,000 years. Secondly, in 1948, the United Nations voted to partition their country without even consultation. It gave a substantial part of it to Jews who were living there to form the state of Israel. Thirdly, after the 1967 war, Israel began the occupation of the West Bank and has remained there for more than 36 years, which is six times longer than the British occupation of Germany after the Second World War.
	Fourthly, Israel has established permanent settlements in what will be the state of Palestine with 220,000 Israelis living there. Surprisingly, 70 per cent of them are there primarily for economic reasons, including the provision of excellent housing. The remaining 30 per cent, which is just 70,000 out of a total Israeli population of 6 million, are there for ideological reasons. Israel, in its attempt to protect the settlements and provide security, has divided the country into small segments by the use of road blocks and the construction of many new roads reserved for the use of Israeli settlers. Normal social and economic life is no longer possible for the Palestinians.
	The Israelis also have right on their side. First, Jews settled in the present land of Palestine and Israel 3,200 years ago. Secondly, following the Holocaust, when 6 million Jews died—representing one third of the world's population of Jews at that time—in 1948 the United Nations voted to partition Palestine for the Jewish people to create the state of Israel. The very next day Egypt, Jordan and Syria, by force of arms, attempted to crush the newly formed state. They did so again in 1967 and in 1973. Those attacks forced Israel to begin the occupation of the West Bank.
	Today, there is a plan known as the road map to peace, which was devised by the United States, Europe, Russia and the United Nations. It reads very well on paper and in my opinion Israel is capable of carrying out all of its terms. However, it will not do so unless the Palestinians do the same. On the Palestinian side, it fails at the first hurdle, for the Palestinians are obliged to curb the suicide bombing attacks by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aksa. If we can accept that Arafat wants to end the bombings, he does not have the means to do so and if he tries the result might end in civil war.
	What do the populations of both countries think? Around 70 per cent of the people of Israel want a peace agreement. At a recent parliamentary Middle East meeting, I asked Mr Bazouti, a well known authority on Palestinian problems, whether there was an equivalent to the Israeli Peace Now! movement. He replied that the overwhelming majority of people, albeit silently, favoured peace with Israel. So clearly the majority of both peoples want peace but cannot force their governments to negotiate.
	If there is one bright light on the horizon, it is the Geneva accord. This is a private initiative between senior Israeli and Palestinian politicians that attempts to create a peace agreement acceptable to both sides. The Israeli delegation was led by Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli Minister, and the Palestinian delegation by Yasser Abd Rabbo, a former Palestinian Minister. The Geneva accord was signed on 1 December 2003.
	Comparing the two plans, we find that the objective of the road map is to allow the resumption of negotiations, while the objective of the Geneva accord is to resolve the outstanding final status issues. The British Government commended the Geneva accord for its conclusions, which offered clear solutions to the disputed issues. However, they preferred the road map to peace which, at the time, appeared to be a workable solution. However, many now agree that the road map to peace has failed primarily because the Palestinians are unable to meet their obligations.
	Where do we go from here? I believe that the most realistic possibility for peace between Israelis and Palestinians is the Geneva accord. I now propose a three-stage structure: stage one should be for this plan to be studied by the three countries most able and willing to support the Palestinians—Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. At the same time, the United States and some European countries which are able and willing to support Israel should also study the plan. The second stage should be to present the agreed accord to Prime Minister Sharon and President Arafat, but also to leaders of the other political parties in Israel as well as to the leaders of the other factions in Palestine. The third and final stage should be for a referendum to be agreed between Sharon and Arafat, and to be held in Israel and Palestine on the understanding that, if the accord is approved by a majority of those voting in each country, it would be adopted.
	I hope that these ideas are worthy of the further consideration of noble Lords.

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I propose to speak about terrorism, which is generally supposed to be the most serious challenge facing both foreign and domestic policy making. There are two versions of terrorist activity. The first is the local form, such as the IRA, ETA in the Basque region, Corsican terrorists in France and others. It is also, I think, permissible to regard Hamas as an organisation with basically local aims. Contemptibly brutal though these organisations have been, they have aimed at local targets rather than widespread international ones.
	Now we are faced with what seems to be a larger and more ambitious terrorist movement, Al'Qaeda, which seems to want to shock the West into surrender in a variety of ways and on a wider scale, although with one major local aim, which is to drive the United States out of Saudi Arabia. The essence of Al'Qaeda seems to be that it is an austere, fundamentalist movement of Muslims possessed—I use the word of Dostoevsky—by certain ideas. It is sometimes suggested that this movement, like other terrorist movements, can be dealt with by addressing the breeding ground that lies behind it, one of poverty and misery. However, I do not think that that is relevant here. Al'Qaeda, along with most other terrorist movements, does not have economic roots. I believe that Marx would have agreed with that statement, were he still living. Those involved with Al'Qaeda are men determined to create a different world from our own. Discussion about the rule of law as we define it has absolutely no relevance to their machinations.
	It is perhaps comforting to be reminded that there have been other such movements in the past. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I do not refer to two armies of the Middle Ages, both Muslim, which derived from the preaching of an austere Moroccan hermit—the Almoravids and the Almohades—although they certainly did have something in common with Al'Qaeda, and within Islam I think I am right in saying that the past has much less perspective than it has with ourselves.
	Rather, I shall refer to the anarchist terrorist movement which was the cause of many tragedies during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Anarchists were also austere and moved by the dream of an ideal world—one without governments and without capitalism which would be created when, as they put it, the last king was strangled in the guts of the last priest. Exactly like Al'Qaeda, anarchists believed in what they called the "propaganda of the deed". Surely if they murdered an archbishop in particularly striking circumstances or blew up a train, the bourgeoisie would quiver into surrender.
	In some ways the anarchists were more successful than Al'Qaeda has been up to now. They assassinated a President of the United States, they murdered an Austro-Hungarian empress and they killed three Prime Ministers and one archbishop of Spain, among many other people. Known as "internationals" in the first instance, they were particularly busy in Spain where they blew up trains, caused havoc at a royal wedding in 1905, bombed an opera house and set off many other explosions.
	However, in the end the anarchists became completely convinced of their own inefficacy because despite their cold brutalities, they could not bring the ideal world they had planned a whit closer.
	Perhaps through skilful propaganda and the use of ideas, that realisation can be contrived in the long run—artificially, no doubt—with the leaders and followers of Al'Qaeda. Alternatively, and perhaps this is a frivolous suggestion, they might be ruined by the soft life, which did contribute to lessening the drive of their distant predecessors, the Almoravids.
	Finally, turning to how to carry on the campaign against terrorism, which is essential and which, in this country, seems to be being accomplished with great skill, it is necessary to do whatever we need to do in a spirit of honour and within the framework of a love of the law which, in every detail, should distinguish us from our opponents.
	In 1916, Trotsky, who I suggest was just as dangerous a man to western civilisation as bin Laden seems to be today, was imprisoned in Spain as an illegal immigrant. He refused to take his hat off. He asked to see the rule which insisted that hats should be removed in prison. There was no such rule and so he was allowed to keep his hat on. That suggests the spirit with which prisoners, however appallingly brutal they are, should be treated by civilised captors.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, there are few in your Lordships' Chamber whose experience in the diplomatic affairs of this country can compare with that of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. I am currently chairing a Select Committee investigation for your Lordships' House and I have been privileged that the noble Lord has sat in on the committee; his advice and guidance have been invaluable.
	I wish to speak about the subject of global threats. I shall address two global threats and, I hope, draw a conclusion.
	The first global threat is and has been that of Iraq. I have supported the war in Iraq for one overriding reason. It is true that Saddam Hussein was a barbarous dictator—a mini-Hitler terrorising his people and attacking his neighbours. It is true that I and others fully believed that Iraq had been developing weapons of mass destruction. And it is also true that Saddam Hussein had been constantly flouting a mandatory United Nations resolution. However, my support was based on none of those issues; my personal reason was more basic than that.
	Nations go to war to protect their economic interests. Our national interest is the stability of the Persian Gulf. Well over half of the world's proven reserves of oil are located in or around that strip of waterway. Oil is our lifeblood. The prospect of any rogue nation or any terrorist group being able to hold a knife to our jugular is to me simply unacceptable. That is the reason that I supported the war.
	War is a gruesome and bloody business. Our magnificent troops risk their lives every day. This is not the time to go wobbly. I, for one, support the Prime Minister in his determination to bring law and order and democracy to that much blighted nation.
	There is another global threat which even a recent report commissioned by the Pentagon has described as greater than that of international terrorism, and that is global warming. In January this year, with two other noble Lords, I was fortunate enough to visit the British Antarctic Survey Base at Rothera. We flew even further south, to 72 degrees latitude, where we saw a beautiful but frightening sight—a waterfall cascading down the rocks to form a stream, which from the air we clearly saw had become a rudimentary river. We were witnessing in those southern climes the firsthand effects of global warming. The Antarctic is melting, the Arctic is melting, and it is a massive threat to us all.
	The Pentagon report entitled Imagining the Unthinkable paints a gloomy assessment of the greenhouse effect and what it calls "abrupt climate change". Melting ice produces fresh cold water, which is less dense than salt water and is flooding the northern Atlantic. By 2010 it could slow down or shut off the Gulf Stream. The climates of eastern North America and western Europe could turn sharply colder. The interiors of our continents could soon have a climate similar to that in Siberia. Then it will not be oil that will be the scarce resource; it will be water and food. And if we know anything about human nature, when given a choice between starving and raiding, humans raid.
	The Kyoto Protocol was watered down to meet the requirements of the United States, but the Bush Administration is now refusing to ratify it. Indeed, the Administration is even refusing to accept that global warming exists, let alone that it is almost certainly caused by the emission of carbon dioxide gases.
	The twin global threats of the war in Iraq and climate change have one common thread—oil. We go to war to protect our oil supplies; we then burn the oil and this then causes our planet to warm. A warmer planet threatens all our futures.
	There is a fight to be fought and no one is better placed to fight it than our Prime Minister. The United States needs our support in Iraq and, quite rightly, we are giving it in the most demonstrable way. But there must be a quid pro quo. We need to persuade the US Government of just how important global warming is to mankind's future. The American nation emits 25 per cent of all carbon dioxide yet has only 6 per cent of the world's population. The time has surely come for the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and to offer the world the leadership it so desperately needs.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright, for initiating the debate and for giving us the opportunity to discuss many issues of profound significance. I will focus on the catastrophe in Darfur as it must surely feature as one of Her Majesty's Government's priorities today.
	The International Crisis Group's report just three days ago entitled Sudan: Now or Never claims:
	"There is just enough time to save hundreds of thousands of lives directly threatened by [the Sudanese] government-supported militias and looming starvation, but only if the world acts very urgently".
	Therefore, although the Darfur crisis was raised in your Lordships' House last Thursday, it merits further consideration and will, I hope, elicit a more substantive response from the Minister today.
	The ICG report calls for,
	"immediate, focused action, especially from the UN Security Council, to stop the killing and widespread atrocities, prevent mass starvation, reverse ethnic cleansing".
	But this is only one in a growing number of reports documenting the scale of this tragedy. The May 2004 Human Rights Watch report entitled Darfur Destroyed: Ethnic Cleansing by Government and Militia Forces in Western Sudan claims:
	"The Government and its Janjaweed allies have killed thousands of Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa—often in cold blood, raped women and destroyed villages, foodstocks and other supplies essential to the civilian population. They have driven more than 1 million civilians, mostly farmers, into camps and settlements in Darfur where they live on the very edge of survival, hostage to Janjaweed abuses which may turn them into extermination camps. More than 110,000 have fled to neighbouring Chad".
	Human Rights Watch condemns as "too little, too late" and "shameful" the response of the international community. It regrets that, although there have been strong statements from the European Union, there has been little public condemnation from key individual governments, such as the United Kingdom.
	No one can claim ignorance of the horrors of Darfur. Last Friday's edition of the Scotsman described in chilling detail the situation justifying the allegation of genocide. The front page headline reads:
	"Mass murder, rape and a million refugees on the move, but the international community turns a blind eye to a people's suffering".
	Mukesh Kapila, the outgoing UN humanitarian co-ordinator for Sudan, describes Darfur as,
	"the worst humanitarian crisis in the world",
	adding:
	"This is more than just a conflict. It is an organised attempt [by Khartoum] to do away with a group of people".
	Kofi Annan, addressing the UNHCR on the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, made specific mention of Darfur, arguing that the international community cannot stand idle, while John Prendergast of the ICG refers to Sudan and Darfur as "Rwanda in slow motion".
	Those who are primarily guilty of such slaughter and suffering are the National Islamic Front regime in Khartoum and the Janjaweed militias on horseback it supports. United Nations teams which visited Darfur discovered,
	"disturbing patterns of massive human rights violations",
	many of which may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity, perpetrated by the Sudanese government and their proxy militia.
	The regime in Khartoum puts the blame on so-called rebels, but this is ultimate hypocrisy. No one except the Government has the capacity for aerial attacks, and numerous reports testify to attacks on innocent civilians by helicopter gunships and bombardment with 500 kilogramme bombs dropped from government Antonovs.
	Last Thursday, the Minister answering, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, spoke with passion and indignation, but the content of her message was woefully inadequate. Surely Her Majesty's Government can no longer talk with credibility about lobbying and remonstrating with the National Islamic Front regime. How long can Her Majesty's Government talk peace when there is no peace, ignoring the fact that the Government of Sudan continue to kill while they talk peace? And the Government of Sudan's sincerity of commitment to the peace talks is further disproved by recent military offensives against civilians in Upper Nile, with 75,000 people now driven from their homes in that part of Sudan.
	Immediate steps must be taken. Will the Minister give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will promote effective measures to require the Government of Sudan to open all Sudan to independent international humanitarian aid and human rights personnel, and to ensure that refugees are allowed to return to their homes with adequate security guarantees, thus reversing the ethnic cleansing? We also need to promote a UN Security Council resolution condemning the violations of international humanitarian law in Sudan, especially the indiscriminate killing of civilians and the obstruction of humanitarian aid. We need to impose an arms embargo with enforcement mechanisms, and bring to justice those responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
	In conclusion, this debate gives the Minister the opportunity to put the record straight before we in the United Kingdom become even more culpable of standing by and allowing genocide in Sudan to proceed unchecked. If we do not respond effectively now, we shall condone another Rwanda and stand condemned by history as guilty of failing to prevent the suffering and deaths of even more thousands of innocent people doomed to die in the next few months. It must be the hope of those people whose lives we could save that the Minister will not disappoint them today.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond already knows that I intend to spend my few minutes on a subject much nearer home—namely, the treatment of international affairs in Parliament and, more specifically, in this House.
	Since I came to this House in 1995, there has been a marked increase in public interest in international affairs and especially development. One reason for that has been the growth of the articulate aid lobby and the active participation of tens of thousands campaigning on issues such as trade, justice, aid and debt relief. Simultaneously there has been a surge of interest in overseas travel and the gap year, with a corresponding growth in understanding of world affairs. With the arrival of global citizenship education, schools have organised more exchanges and study visits in line with the revised curriculum. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans rightly mentioned the role of religion.
	The Government have responded positively by gradually restoring the aid budget and continuing their support for the excellent BBC World Service and British Council. Since September 11, of course, the picture has changed again, and there has been increasing public concern about our conduct of foreign affairs in relation to anti-terrorism and, more recently, Iraq. Some confusion has also arisen between our own development policy and our Government's apparent conversion to President Bush's apparent evangelism in the Middle East. On occasion, it seems that development has again become subservient to foreign policy.
	Without entering that important subject further, I shall say only that alongside that public awareness has been a pressing need for greater parliamentary scrutiny of international affairs in both Houses. My contention is that proper scrutiny in this House has been quite inadequate. We are apparently guided by a convention that House of Commons Select Committees, especially those on foreign affairs and international development, already cover the waterfront. At the same time we are reminded that two of our own EU sub-committees already handle significant areas of foreign affairs, albeit through the prism of the EU.
	A number of Peers whom I have consulted, who have considerable experience of international affairs and have either held office or served in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, believe that those arguments are no longer good enough. We have carefully examined the list of subjects covered by the Foreign Affairs Committee and International Development Committee in the past three years, and found that it is surprisingly limited. Terrorism and Iraq, for example, are well covered, but security in Afghanistan was not until this month, nor was most of the Middle East. China has not been examined for four years. India, most of Asia, Latin America and even Africa—except for Zimbabwe—have been ignored. Nepal has been left out, despite our close past association and the present crisis there. There are many such examples.
	A committee pattern established more than 20 years ago for the Commons cannot any longer be held to be suited to this House. It is time that we considered it again. Besides that, we now have an impressive galaxy of talent in this House. New appointments in the past few years have included former Foreign Secretaries as well as diplomats and academics. We have all benefited from the speech today of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and we look forward in due course to hearing from Ted Rowlands.
	It is no good the Government saying that we have ample opportunity to speak in debates such as this, to ask parliamentary questions or question Ministers. Such reserves of talent could just as well be channelled into productive committee work and obtaining the proper evidence to back up recommendations. My suggestion is that after the next election we should establish our own Select Committee to consider specific aspects of foreign affairs that are not being covered elsewhere. That committee would not duplicate the Commons committees but would consider the neglected areas and the longer term subjects, reporting on subjects such as conflict resolution in Africa, the Commonwealth, United Nations reform, island states and intervention in failed states and in emergencies.
	With regard to the EU committees, highly respected as they are—and for very good reasons—it is arguable that the Lords has become a bit Eurocentric. It is not enough to view the whole world through a European window, especially when we know how much damage the EU is still doing to the trade of developing countries. However important the new European treaty is, especially to our political parties, which seem to be able to make capital out of it, this country has a wider perspective.
	Finally, the Minister may think that this is a subject for this House and not for the Government—which is of course, strictly speaking, correct. However, it is also a subject that concerns the Government and on which the Government have a view, because of the additional scrutiny of departmental work. It could well be that this Government do not want to be questioned by another committee. On the other hand, I put it to the Minister that Members of this House are well informed on international affairs—perhaps, dare I say, better informed than those in another place. I suggest that civil servants and Ministers might appreciate more constructively critical reports from this House in future. Above all, I believe that the public deserves a better service from Parliament in international affairs.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the repercussions of today's situation are as vital to global interests as any since the Second World War. We in Parliament must ensure that those tasked with safeguarding those interests are given the tools; and that those tools include transparent and strategically apt policies.
	Regrettably, our centuries of experience do not always deliver as warm a relationship with some strategic partners as we might wish or, misguidedly believe we have; unrealistic priorities, tight budgets and excessive administration are taking their toll. And it must be remembered that while the Foreign Office leads, delivery is a cross-departmental endeavour, including that of intelligence agencies. This last, tasked with watching Afghanistan and Iraq, were an obvious economic casualty in the early days, and that situation must not be repeated. An immediate solution to relieve this would be to wind up the overseas divisions of UK Trade and Investment, which bring nothing of substance to the table. Instead, crucial economic intelligence and improved modus operandi could be advanced from the private sector.
	Returning to the theme of global interests, today's global discontent is not generally about Islam/Christian ideological differences but rather is rooted in glaring East/West, North/South wealth distribution inequality compounded by double standards, corruption, poverty, ignorance and endemic hopelessness. An unjust world has been created that is unacceptable to increasing sections of global citizenry. And just as we have now learnt to our cost that marginalising regional issues is not an option, so we can no longer fail to deal directly with the underlying causes, finding solutions sensitive to religious and ethnic variances. No longer can global harmony be sacrificed at the altar of insularity in the name of national interest.
	Dismantling insular policies would bring immediate benefit to all the troubled and troubling corners of our fragile world; from Iraq to Iran, from Palestine to Israel and, as relevant, from Nigeria to Colombia. Until we do, three issues of specific enormity—drugs, terrorism and illegal immigration—will continue to thrive. Yet it is sometimes myopic criticism by armchair veterans who should know better, but do not, that delay solutions in volatile situations; in effect giving succour to lost causes against the advice and wisdom of professionals, including those of British Government representatives.
	Let us consider, my Lords, the significant current Early Day Motion signed by 207 British Members of Parliament calling for the curbing of British military assistance to Colombia. I question whether the action of those MPs is derived solely and properly from the conscientious consideration of all the facts and the disregard of political patronage. Why do they have no reported interest in the bigger picture and appear satisfied with inadequate briefing before adjudicating on a complex situation?
	The background of the umbrella non-governmental organisation behind this EDM would repay closer scrutiny than hitherto appears to have been the case. Indeed, I call on the Government urgently to review the funding arrangements of this, and, indeed, other similar exploitative and manipulative NGOs, thereby curbing the misinformation so readily available today.
	A much-needed but fragile peace clings on within Colombia, giving law-abiding Colombians respite from a 40-year murderous civil war, with its persistent acts of kidnapping and terrorism, including indiscriminate bombings and atrocities that have extinguished more than 100,000 lives.
	Do not be lulled into thinking that the issues are too far removed from UK interests. We are directly impacted through the production and distribution on to the streets of London each year of an estimated 40 tons of cocaine, which not only funds the debilitating internal war, but also fuels the global network of terrorist organizations. Were any of those MPs to suffer children who have taken, or worse, are hooked on, drugs, they would reconsider their position in short order.
	Accuracy is all, so permit me to set the record straight. A little-known fact of this civil war is that there are now 2 million displaced people, giving Colombia the third largest global displacement profile. Yet through this reign of terror, democratic ideals have been safeguarded by successive administrations.
	Undeniable advances are recognized by the United Nations covering general human rights by the military, which now has an unrivalled popularity rating. Another misconception being promoted within the House of Commons includes the essential role of campesino soldiers, for example, who assist in delivering local security. MPs suggest that they form part of a local militia. The reality is that they are paid for by the state, carry out essential tasks and are commanded by full-time military commanders.
	Other self-defeating inaccuracies contained in the EDM fail to reflect the dramatic security improvement in the first full year of President Uribe's administration. Through misinformation, this plays exactly into the hands of those who are attempting to disrupt the rule of law.
	In conclusion, British military assistance to Colombia—in reality it is the Americans who supply the bulk with the United Kingdom targeting social development—is certainly necessary, appreciated and insufficient. Ill-informed opinion masquerading as fact simply prolongs the grief.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wright for initiating this important debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for his eagerly awaited contribution.
	I wish to address one issue only: Foreign and Commonwealth Office policy on the promotion and protection of human rights. If anyone had doubted that human rights are not an abstract minority interest of liberal-minded but unrealistic people with bleeding hearts—the preserve of what is sometimes called, with a resonance not intended to signify approval, "the human rights lobby"—the past few weeks could not have made it clearer. Human rights abuses are real. They happen to real men, women and children all the time, and not just in places like Uzbekistan—where we have reason to be grateful to the Government that the British representative there speaks out and is allowed to continue to do so. Human rights abuses can happen anywhere and can be perpetrated by the citizens of anywhere.
	I am thinking in particular of the horrible pictures we have seen from Iraq, showing prisoners being ill-treated in Abu Ghraib prison. We have no pictures of Guantanamo Bay, but we have stories. Some of these pictures undoubtedly meet the definition of torture as set out in the 1984 convention against torture:
	"Any act which by severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession".
	Those pictures will indeed become, in the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, earlier in the debate, "dragons' teeth" and prime elements in the battle of ideas. Those pictures are, of course, standard pictures of torture and human rights abuses the world over for those who have the misfortune to have to look at them over time. The commission of such acts is not always so newsworthy. Nor do such acts always have such serious consequences for the reputation of the states whose citizens have carried them out as did those committed in the pictures from Abu Ghraib.
	In this context, I welcome most warmly the inclusion of human rights in the sixth FCO strategic priority, which is:
	"Sustainable development, underpinned by democracy, good governance and human rights",
	with the specific aim of,
	"promoting the universal implementation of international human rights and humanitarian standards".
	The point about these standards is that they are universal. They are not western, northern or southern; they are not Christian, Islamic or Jewish; they are agreed by the United Nations and therefore by all states.
	In my view, this inclusion of human rights in the FCO's priorities is not cosmetic, nor is it a sop to those who still think that foreign policy should have an ethical dimension, when the realists have already moved on. Supporting human rights is not idealistic. It is a prime ingredient in the construction of a safer world. So I welcome the support for human rights work that is part of FCO policy; I congratulate the Minister on the publication of the FCO annual human rights report; and I welcome the statement by the Foreign Secretary at the beginning of the report where he says:
	"A concern for the victims of human rights abuses lies at the heart of the Government's foreign policy".
	Those subject to the death penalty in the United States are often such victims, and the Government have made many representations on behalf of death row prisoners in that country. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, was quite right to say in this debate that treatment similar to that in Abu Ghraib occurs in the prisons of many of the individual states of the United States. Perhaps the Government will wish to take up those abuses with the United States Government.
	The annual human rights report does not just comment on other countries' failures to respect human rights; it mainly describes the practical and dedicated work undertaken by this Government to promote and protect human rights. The initiative taken by the then Foreign Secretary in February 1998 to set up the Human Rights Project Fund has had many practical outcomes. The fund has supported projects combating torture in Russia and discrimination against Roma children in Bulgaria, promoting religious freedom in Egypt, training senior police in China, supporting the human rights commission in Rwanda, and many more. It has achieved huge coverage with very small expenditure and has made a difference to the lives of many people.
	Will the Minister tell us the trend in FCO Human Rights Project Fund spending? I hope that she will be able to tell the House that there are plans for it to increase substantially. In particular, can she tell us what the UK is doing to combat torture around the world?

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, two Sundays ago, on that important day, 8 May, invited by the mayor of a small hill village, I stood before the war memorial and the church listening to splendid music in the presence of the heads of the pompiers, the police and the gendarmerie and of a British vicar. Unknown to me beforehand, it was Armistice Day. One of the youngest people in the village and one of the oldest came and laid a wreath. After the prayers, the national anthem came through the loudspeakers, then the anthem of the United States, then that of Canada, and then that of France. As I looked out over the Mediterranean, I realised that that was where the Moorish invasions had come from and it was from there, on 15 August 1945, that 1,000 ships or more had come for the liberation of France. I had forgotten that Armistice Day was on 8 May 1945.
	I wondered why the French, British and American flags were all red, white and blue. I have no idea. Why did the French give the United States the Statue of Liberty—liberté, égalité et fraternité? Why was it that on the White House lawn on 16 April President Bush turned to Tony Blair and said, "We stood together during the past century when liberty was assaulted"? I thought, hang about, did we really stand together? What actually happened? Of course, the United States came into the First World War in March 1917, but I think only because three of its ships were sunk by submarines with extensive loss of life. Of course, it came into the Second World War in December 1941, but I think that was only because of Pearl Harbour when it declared war on the Japanese, and subsequently Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.
	I wondered about 11 September. Was it also a knee-jerk reaction that led to the war in Iraq, or was there something deeper and more sinister? I remembered—I once thought that he was in your Lordships' House—that the American Chief of Justice, Earl Warren, said that in civilised life law floats in a sea of ethics. That takes me immediately to ethical foreign policy. The founder of ethical foreign policy—the chief ethicist, if that is the word—resigned because foreign policy was no longer moral or ethical. I wondered what our foreign policy was.
	In the world in which I work, I find that more and more the same question is being asked—obviously, it is about Iraq. But the following question is being asked more now; namely, what have the British been doing? I tell people, "Don't worry about Iraq. It is the duty or the responsibility of everyone in the United Kingdom to support the Prime Minister because he has the right to go to war". People say, "What about that wonderful man, Lord Robertson? He is in NATO; can't he do something about it? Why isn't he involved?" The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, should know, and would understand, the respect in which he has been held throughout the world during the past few years. I thank him for his excellent speech today.
	On the other hand there is the growth of anti-American feeling. I have spoken about this before and I have already declared my American relative and military relationships in the United States. I wonder why the United States has not understood that it is becoming the enemy of the world. Many people—Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt—warned that those who do evil must be very careful. Was the war in Iraq evil? In my view it was simply a punitive mission, possibly the greatest punitive mission that has ever taken place. However, I am not quite sure what the motives and reasons behind it were, and where the future lies.
	As I listen to your Lordships, I find that again and again we are in danger of repeating ourselves. We have to look forward and ask what are the priorities of the United Kingdom. Inevitably, self-interests are involved. Regrettably, the ultimate weapon of diplomacy is war, and war is a matter of life and death.
	In the wars of the past century we lost the British Empire, as it was then, comprising 7.2 million people. The United States lost 300,000 people in each of the world wars and another 100,000 in Vietnam. I wonder how many lives have been lost in recent events and how many more will be lost. War, unfortunately, is a matter of life and death. We go to war in general to save life and to restore peace, but where there is war in any one country there may well be a threat everywhere else in the world, as we were reminded by Mr Roosevelt at the start of the 1939 war. Diplomacy should be about peace. Let us hope that we may find a peaceful way forward.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wright, on tabling this Motion for debate today. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, on his excellent maiden speech. I have no doubt that we shall hear more from him.
	I shall confine my remarks to Iraq. As one disaster follows another and a new outrage against the Iraqi people is revealed almost daily, I become more than ever convinced that the illegal invasion of Iraq should never have been embarked upon. I also become exasperated when I hear history being rewritten by the Prime Minister and President Bush.
	Support for the invasion of Iraq was secured in Britain on the basis that Iraq possessed large quantities of weapons of mass destruction ready for use against British targets within 45 minutes. Let us get that on record as often as we possibly can. Since no such weapons have been found, Mr Blair has shifted his ground and is attempting now to con people into believing that the war was to liberate Iraqis from a vicious dictatorial regime—a regime, incidentally, that we supported when it suited us.
	President Bush has convinced the Americans that the Iraq adventure was part of the war on terror; but there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war—Saddam Hussein had cleared them out. But now, according to the United States' and British Governments, Iraq is full of terrorists fighting coalition troops. Indeed, official spokesmen insist that those involved in the fighting and suicide bombings are not freedom fighters against the coalition but foreign terrorists. So, by their own admission, Britain and the United States have created in Iraq a hotbed of terrorism in a country that before the invasion was a terrorist-free zone.
	There certainly has been terror—terror wreaked on Iraq over the past 14 months by coalition forces. According to independent reports, between 10,000 and 15,000 Iraqis, many of them women and children, have been killed and many more injured. Large-scale damage has been caused to property, including religious buildings, while services that were previously working are still defunct due to the coalition assault on Iraq and the failure to have a post-war plan of reconstruction. Some 8,000 Iraqi men are still held in prison without trial or charge.
	We now know that the United States with unbelievable insensitivity used the very same infamous Abu Ghraib torture prison used by Saddam against his political opponents to inflict torture and humiliation on Iraqi people. To their credit, many Americans, probably a majority, were horrified and sickened by what was being done in their name by United States occupation forces. But not, apparently, Mr Rumsfeld. He had the gall to visit the prison not to protest at the horrors perpetrated by some of his forces on Iraqis, but to tell those forces that "they were doing a grand job". That was a monstrous and offensive thing to do. No wonder he felt comfortable shaking hands with Saddam during the period of the Iraq/Iran war when poison gas was being used against the Iranians and the Kurds.
	I want now to return to the matter of Iraqi casualties because I am concerned and, indeed, disappointed at the attitude of our Government to the suffering of Iraqi civilians at the hands of coalition forces. We know exactly how many American and British troops have been killed since the war began. Indeed, the last figure I saw was 777 Americans and 67 Britons. We all feel sorry for them and their relatives and friends. However, when we ask for the number of Iraqis who have been killed, we are told that there are no official figures available. Apparently, little effort has been made to find out. We have to rely on independent organisations such as Iraq Body Count and the Red Cross to collect the figures. The latest figures from Iraq Body Count are 11,005 killed, although that did not include 800 killed in Najaf, 235 in Baghdad and 20 in the Basra region. The British Government can give us no official figures, because they have not bothered to count the dead Iraqis. People, especially in the Middle East, can be forgiven for believing that the British and American Governments consider Arab lives far less important than those of westerners. That smacks of blatant and disgusting racism of the worst kind.
	The great pity is that the horrors inflicted on Iraq, and the deaths of United States and British soldiers, could have been avoided. The best thing that could happen is for the whole matter to be handed quickly over to the United Nations, with British and coalition troops withdrawn as soon as possible.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond for introducing this very topical debate, at a time when foreign policy stands at the top of the political agenda. I should like to focus my remarks on Africa, a continent that our Prime Minister recently described as,
	"a scar on the conscience of the world".
	For much of the past century, Africa has been a place of paradoxes—of hope and despair, of good news and bad news—and so it remains. However, Her Majesty's Government deserve credit for their proactive approach to Africa. In addition to our support for NePAD, the G8 Africa Action Plan and the Africa Partners Forum, I fully support the recently launched Commission for Africa. I also welcome the increase in British aid to Africa, which is reported will reach in excess of £1 billion next year. That is almost three times what we were giving in aid three years ago.
	Our Government's initiatives have, in part, also resulted in many of the success stories in Africa, such as Kenya, Mozambique and Sierra Leone among the many others. On the AIDS awareness campaign, although the pandemic in many areas of Africa goes from bad to worse, it is encouraging that through our efforts the spread of HIV/AIDS, particularly in Uganda, has to a large degree been halted.
	However, a lot of the positive progress is undermined by events bringing despair in countries such as Zimbabwe. The recently broadcast interview with Robert Mugabe on Sky News a few days ago, where he insulted our Prime Minister and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, typified his contempt for the voice of reason and showed how detached he was from reality. However, slow progress is being made to resolve the disastrous situation in Zimbabwe, and high-level discussions are still in progress.
	It is becoming increasingly clear that Robert Mugabe pays more attention to the words of President Obasanjo of Nigeria and President Chissano of Mozambique than to the words of President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, whom he considers his junior. I spoke to President Mbeki last year, and he gave me assurances—eyeball to eyeball—that there would be change this year. I should be corrected; it will certainly not happen in that time.
	What measures are Her Majesty's Government taking to seek the support of Presidents Obasanjo and Chissano to expedite the timetable to achieve a government of national unity with the powers to rescue Zimbabwe from disaster? Britain's recent policy of assisting negotiations discreetly from the sidelines has been criticised as ineffective, yet it is working. I understand from several senior members of ZANU-PF that they would be in favour of Her Majesty's Government taking a more proactive role in brokering high-level negotiations between the MDC and ZANU-PF, to talk about their differences and explore what can be achieved. Even in the midst of despair, there is some hope.
	President Mbeki's vision of an African renaissance is attractive, and his leadership role within NePAD is praised, but his central theme—that there should be African solutions to African problems—has been spoiled by his own ineffective approach to the tyranny raging across his northern border. Inside South Africa, a sound economy keeps the country on an even keel and, with the free distribution of anti-retroviral drugs, at long last there are signs that the government are slowly addressing the devastating spread of HIV/AIDS. Her Majesty's Government continue to play a highly constructive role within South Africa at many levels, which is to be welcomed.
	We have also played a pivotal role in restoring peace and stability in Sierra Leone. However, peace and stability in Sierra Leone largely depend on similar conditions being maintained in Liberia, to which my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond referred in his "forgotten" list. Outside agencies should consistently bear that in mind.
	I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the situation in Equatorial Guinea, a small west African nation that has become one of Africa's largest oil producers, but is ruled by a brutal dictator. Human rights organisations have been expressing grave concerns about the levels of abuse in Equatorial Guinea for some time. The recent news that President Obiang Nguema is preparing to supply oil to Zimbabwe should set alarm bells ringing around the world.
	I cannot remember a time when so many bold initiatives and programmes were being launched in Africa, yet the situation in Zimbabwe is a handbrake on so much of that progress. I strongly urge Her Majesty's Government to focus their greatest efforts, both in private and public, on resolving the problem, to the benefit of every country in Africa.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, Serbia is important to Europe but may easily be forgotten. I shall try to sketch a two-way deal that would be excellent for all. Serbia should be persuaded to bring war criminals to justice, to help prevent trafficking in persons, drugs and weapons, and to co-operate in destroying and controlling small arms. It would assist in implementing the Dayton agreement, especially in Republika Srpska. It would help to determine the future of the Serb minority in Kosovo, and might grant a long lease of most of Kosovo to an Albanian authority.
	In return, Serbia would gain substantially, by guarantees of reasonable access to its historic sites in Kosovo; by receiving aid and assistance, particularly for policing and civil and criminal justice. It should be compensated for damage from wartime bombing. Above all, it should receive major inward investment, with the ultimate prospect of NATO and EU membership. Such a deal would lead Serbia towards democratic prosperity, to the benefit of the West and the next-door neighbours. It is worth devoting much diplomatic effort to gain such a prize.
	What has bedevilled international relations and generated terrorism, and threatens to antagonise Islam and the West, is the future of Israel, Palestine and their Arab neighbours. There can be no more urgent priority. We have to recognise that the Palestinian economy is destroyed. Two thirds of the people live in poverty and half depend on food aid. Israel also suffers, with its tourism almost gone and young people leaving for better prospects elsewhere.
	One cannot doubt that the current Sharon plan for Gaza is not for withdrawal but for disengagement. It would leave two blocks of settlements, one in the north and another in the south. All fences would stay in place, with a one kilometre wide military strip around the perimeter. A million Palestinians would be left in an open-air prison, disconnected from the West Bank.
	Similarly, Palestinians fear that the completed wall and fence will split the West Bank into separate pieces, cut off from the Jordan and the Dead Sea. Israeli settlements, by contrast, would be linked by secure roads to the rest of their country. The Palestinian areas, like Qalqilya at present, would become enclosed ghettoes. This is a plan for military containment, not for peace.
	Israel needs our help to end the occupation—at a stroke that would revive the Palestinian economy and allow elections to take place, which all the Palestinians I have talked to, including some elected members of their Parliament and distinguished medical professionals, want to see happening. They want to revive their democracy. Such elections could produce a valid partner for negotiating a two-state solution.
	For too long, the richer nations have paid to maintain millions of refugees and have also prevented total destitution among Palestinians. The developed world should now invest in military observers, and if necessary in military forces, to end 37 years of occupation. Israel has a reasonable fear of terrorists and cannot disengage by itself. Therefore, I urge Her Majesty's Government to devote their whole diplomatic strength to create a situation from which peace can emerge.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been a debate on strategic priorities for foreign policy that has demonstrated how difficult it is to set such priorities. I was extremely glad to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. I have suggested to him since then that he should form an all-party group for the study of Islay and that I am willing at any time to make a visit to that island for a detailed study of it and its major products.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, in his opening speech, suggested that we should separate discussion of the external role of the Foreign Office from that of defence and international development. I have to say that, on listening to the debate, I strongly disagree with him. What we need in Britain is the careful co-ordination of all instruments of foreign policy and it is evident from what has been said that international development as an instrument of foreign policy, defence, diplomacy, nation-building and state reconstruction are all part of the way in which Britain has to relate to the rest of the world. I am glad that in this country the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence work very well and closely together—unlike in some other states of which we are painfully aware at the moment—and both work well with the Department for International Development, both here and abroad.
	We have a global commitment, but we have to recognise, we do recognise and the excellent paper produced last December by the Foreign Office recognises, that Britain cannot meet the challenges without close co-operation with others. For example, I notice that we have 153 posts in member states of the United Nations. There are now 192 members of the UN. We, like the French, have now accepted that we cannot manage to maintain representation in every state around the world. There are virtues, for example, in the proposal currently under discussion among Foreign Ministers for a European Union external action service in which we and our fellow members would share posts in some of the smaller countries that might blow up to become problems in four or five years' time, but might not.
	There is an excellent statement in the paper, which talks about Britain's,
	"need to combine our economic, diplomatic and military weight more effectively"
	with our EU partners. I echo that and do not see that as a threat to British sovereignty. I see that as entirely appropriate in furthering British national interests.
	The key elements to British foreign policy are, first, western co-operation with the United States and our European partners. I agree strongly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, that it is unhealthy to have one state dominating the global economy and the world political system. Secondly, we need to have a more balanced relationship, which again means a stronger European Union and a partnership between Europe and the United States. The paper rightly talks about having a "partnership" rather than Britain pursuing a dependent relationship between us alone and the United States. I am deeply unhappy about the image of Britain as a bridge between Europe and the United States. Bridges are what people walk over, whereas we need a dialogue with the US. The third element is our commitment to multilateral institutions and international law, through which medium-range powers like ourselves can operate effectively.
	Regarding European policy, I regret that this Government have been inconsistent, without a clear strategy and without a clear overall concept. Far too often we look over our shoulders at the Murdoch press. A stronger European common foreign policy is in Britain's interest. Britain has led in promoting a European security and defence policy—a hard battle, but one in which we have as many allies among other EU governments as back-sliders.
	We have not pushed as hard as we might for a more effective European development policy which would involve substantial further reform of the Commission and its ability to implement such a policy. Above all, there has been a public diplomacy failure to explain British objectives, either at home or abroad. It pains me when I see British Ministers slipping back again into the language of "us versus them" in the negotiations on the Constitutional Treaty, when we are now committed to a referendum which, I assume, Her Majesty's Government hopes to persuade the British public should be passed and as regards which we wish to persuade our friends across the Channel that we are attempting to achieve the same objectives as them.
	We should operate our policy towards the United States as a candid friend not as a loyal subordinate, as a number of noble Lords have said. I agree strongly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, about that. There is after all, at the moment, a substantial divergence between British and American assumptions—that is, the assumptions of the current administration and the currently dominant party in Congress about global threats and challenges. In Washington the preoccupation is with hard military power, "shock and awe", quick-in and quick-out "state destruction", as the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, remarked, instead of state reconstruction and nation-building—the sort of things that the British Army does so well.
	The Foreign Office strategy paper talks a good deal about the new threats that we face on climate change, population explosion and global inequality. Sustainable development is one of the eight strategic priorities mentioned. That is not acceptable in the current discourse in Washington, where climate change is still not entirely on the political agenda. The paper underestimates migration as a major issue for us and others in international politics. It notes that the current estimate is that between 130,000 and 150,000 people enter the United Kingdom each year and stay—adding roughly a million people to our population every six to seven years. That will be a major issue, including how we cope with the countries from which those people are being pushed towards the rich world.
	The dangers of "the West versus the rest", of slipping into a situation in which the rich world sees the poor world as antagonistic, where there is a clash of civilisations or one in which Islam is seen as—I quote Charles Krauthammer—"the existential enemy", is one that we have the deepest interest in opposing.
	I strongly agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans about the importance of understanding among faiths in this country and outside. Foreign and domestic policy go together. During the past three week-ends, I have spoken to about 1,000 British Muslims and I am conscious of the importance of linking these issues together.
	The mood within the American Right had a degree of rage against the outside world. It sees the hosts of Median prowling and prowling around, the forces of evil surrounding them. Happily, we do not share that sense of good versus evil. Therefore, there is a deep need for Her Majesty's Government and for America's other allies to engage within the American debate to explain why we see the world differently from the current conventional discourse. Our Prime Minister will be in the United States in two weeks' time to attend the G8 summit and I hope that he will take the opportunity to state in public some of our reservations about current American policy. He should not lose that opportunity.
	On the importance of international law and institutions, we have seen a US Administration which has tried to escape from the constraints of international law and which has tried, deliberately on occasions, to weaken the influence of international institutions. Thankfully, people in Washington now recognise how much it was a mistake to downgrade the Geneva Conventions; to assume that the US need not accept the constraints which the rest of us accept. But there is a real problem that the United Nations could be overloaded by having the problem of Iraq dumped upon it. The UN is most valuable as an international institution, but it is not that strong and we must be careful not to overload it.
	We have heard a certain amount about NATO, an important institution to us but also in real danger from the backlash of what has happened during the past three years. Some in Washington have wanted to use NATO as a toolkit in support of US global objectives without listening to their allies and some European governments, particularly in Afghanistan, have failed to take their obligations, once agreed in principle, seriously.
	On the Middle East, clearly operating through the EU and the UN, through the quartet, must be the way forward. Catching the American global Middle East initiative and transforming it into a broader dialogue about economic, political and social reform in the Arab world are all actions we must take together with our European allies. In Afghanistan, we must sustain engagement and persuade our allies to do that.
	In Africa, we must note that the current US Administration does not feel engaged there, but that European interests are directly engaged. Further state collapse in Africa would immediately bring waves of refugees to Britain and other parts of Europe and therefore it is correct for Britain, with its European partners, to be as actively engaged as possible. I welcomed Operation Artemis, the first EU military operation in the eastern Congo last year. I welcome the Prime Minister's commission for Africa. We need to sustain a commitment under difficult circumstances when we are often blocked by corrupt and weak regimes. We have limited resources for our foreign policy and as we pursue it we therefore do best to work with others as well as we can.
	I strongly agree with everything said by my noble friend Lord Alderdice about the risks to our reputation over what has been happening in Iraq. Reputation comes from long-term engagement and from explaining our principles and strategy to our domestic public and those abroad; it comes from commitment, consistency, coherence and, as we hope the Prime Minister will explain on his next visit to the United States, occasionally criticism.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I begin by declaring some interests: as a parent of a son serving in the Army in Basra; as a financial adviser to the Kuwait Investment Office; and as a Conservative Friend of Israel. I hope that those labels do not disqualify me from offering some reasonable, balanced views on the dangerous issues that have been debated so fully today.
	I, too, warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for promoting the debate and introducing it with such enormous wisdom and elegance. Of course, we expect that from him, given his record and his past. I also thoroughly enjoyed the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, former Secretary-General of NATO. I am sorry that under our rules his speech was so truncated because I could have stood a lot more from him. And I hope that we get a lot more in due course because he spoke much wisdom.
	I want to begin with some brief, general observations about the conduct of foreign policy before turning to the specifics. First, in pursuit of our priority objectives—safeguarding our national security and interests, however broadly we interpret them—some of us have argued for two decades that we should think more in terms of soft power. Translated, that means meeting today's threats, hostile stances and sources of destructive tension not just by hard military strength and force—what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, called heavy metal armies—but by the powerful projection of our cause, case and desire for friendship through the persuasive instruments of diplomacy, information, well-honed development policies, cultural activities, skilful activity within international organisations and the ample use of semi-official and non-governmental linkages, as well as the private sector.
	That is what the authors of the Foreign Office document, UK International Priorities, really meant when they talked about a "new agenda" in foreign policy and wider participants in international relations. They did not use the term "soft power", but that is what was behind some of the writing in the document. It would be difficult to think of a more obvious situation calling for the maximum deployment of soft power than the current efforts to defeat global terrorism and change hearts, minds and attitudes, and even styles of governance, throughout the whole Middle East region.
	"Soft power" means that yesterday's Cinderella organisations such as the BBC World Service or the British Council—to which the noble Lord, Lord Wright, referred—or educational, medical and environmental development programmes become not the after-thoughts and leftovers but the front edge of the campaign to secure friends and win hearts and minds. And so do organisations such as the Commonwealth, which has not had much of a mention in the debate. Many of us feel that far from it being an organisation of the past, it is a superb but underfunded global network of the future.
	That is why the events of recent weeks—the Abu Ghraib torture and abuse stories to which several noble Lords referred—are so utterly disastrous. They are the equivalent in modern terms of a major military defeat. It is why carrier fleets, strike fighters, high-tech missiles and the classic instrument of hard power are only half our defences and protection and can deliver only half our foreign policy. There is the other pillar, which is becoming more significant. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, with great wisdom, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, rightly emphasised that point.
	Speaking of soft power leads me to my second general point, which is that, in these conditions, no country can go it alone—not mighty but very vulnerable America; not some cobbled-up European superpower designed as a counter-weight of some form; no nation; and no armed force. The fact is that, thanks to technology, we now live in a totally networked structure in which all the old ways of looking at the world in terms of permanent blocks, hegemonies and hyper-powers are becoming utterly meaningless.
	I think that that, above all, is why even those of us who are the United States' strongest admirers—I am one of them—find the Washington evangelical rhetoric about America being the greatest power on earth and the world's only superpower, bristling with missions and visions and so on, so worrying, unconvincing, ephemeral and, frankly, counter-productive, as some of your Lordships have rightly said.
	At such a time as this, people may talk, understandably, about distancing ourselves from America. But what we really need—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made this point—is to be more closely involved than ever with the American debate in order to drive home the new reality about the network nature and fluidity of the international order. We need to drive home the imperative need for the Americans to work closely and co-operatively with their many potential allies and willing friends and to use their own "soft power", if you like, rather than rely on the doctrines of overwhelming force and the big stick alone. That would not work.
	In that context—this is my third general observation—we seem to be faced too often in these debates with two polar ideas. Either we are told that Middle East states must all succumb to the imposed Washington, Jeffersonian or Westminster democratic model—my noble friends Lord Biffen and Lord Eden rightly questioned that simplicity—or the opposite: that the Islamic theocracies are "inevitable", that they cannot be stopped and that Islam and democracy are somehow incompatible and we may as well face that fact. Both those polar views are equally silly and equally dangerous.
	I often wonder whether any of the many experts now telling us that the coalition should hand over power to the Iraqi ayatollahs have any idea what that would do to the stability of the entire Middle East. The wise and gradualist reformers in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Bahrain, who—if anyone looks at what they are trying to do—are all seeking to pluralise their governance, would all have the rug pulled from under them if Iraq turned into an extreme Islamic state. The outcome would not be stability and it certainly would not be representative democracy; it would be the rise of street revolution and of new intolerant cliques—anti-Western, anti-freedom, anti-women, anti-peace and anti-almost any form of civilised human advance.
	In the immediate situation in Iraq, the key question, which has been touched on in this debate, is of course how sovereignty is to be handed over and whether the latest UN resolution, which we understand has now been tabled, does the trick. My own view is that, in fairness, it is certainly more than cosmetic, as some critics are all too ready to call it. But obviously the success of the resolution and the next stage of policy depend on some crucial problems and questions, and I hope that the Minister will be able to touch on some of them.
	The first is: can Mr Brahimi really perform magic and, in the next few days, come up with the right names which will command confidence in Iraq? Will the new Iraqi Government have the veto on all or any coalition or so-called "multilateral force" operations, as the Prime Minister seems to want? Having said that, nowadays it is extremely hard to find out what government policy is—it changes so fast—other than receiving it second-hand through journalists. And what will be the status of our troops?
	Is the British contribution to be strengthened? Half the newspapers say that it is and others say that it is not official yet. I gather that plans are already under way to move British contingents northwards from Basra so that the whole southern half of Iraq becomes a British military zone. When will we be told about that rather than have to pick up the occasional rumour? More broadly, can the coalition slip out of its occupying power jacket and don the garb of a more pro-Iraqi aid to the civil power? Will there be a national Security Council-type mechanism in the Iraqi government in Baghdad to allow that?
	The answers to those questions are not in the draft resolution, which is silent on most of those matters. On the other hand, those who say that the whole operation should be not only UN-approved, as I hope it will be, but under full UN control are, I believe, deluding themselves. The UN does not have the capacity, the will, the track record or, at present, the reputation—certainly in Iraq—to do what the Iraqis must do for themselves. I believe it was Dag Hammarskjöld who, long ago, said that the UN is set up not to take mankind to paradise but to save it from hell. I think that that is the kind of fairly modest level of aim which we should entertain in thinking about the UN.
	We now urgently need from the Government a firm and clear view based on a robust, open and frank debate about the way ahead in Iraq, as well as in the wider Middle East and on the dubious Sharon plan, which I do not have time to comment on, and on where we think coalition policy could be improved by both soft and hard-power deployments judiciously mixed together.
	I have no criticism of the Prime Minister for making Britain's views on all this clear, whether or not they differ from those in Washington. Indeed, I believe that he should have done so earlier. I see nothing wrong with that; nothing inconsistent with our fervent wish to see this whole project succeed; and nothing wrong with the Opposition wanting this debating process out in the open, as the Liberal Democrats do as well. I hope that the Prime Minister will set out that strategic picture when he speaks at the UN and the G8. I hope that he will base it, coming from a parliamentary democracy as he does, on ideas and viewpoints that have been properly tested here in parliamentary debate and discussion. I totally agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that our committee system in both Houses, and certainly in this House, could do a lot better in that respect.
	We have to get the priorities right in our democracy. We cannot afford to spread our resources and energies over everything in a kind of vague haze of good intentions and good will. We cannot make everything a priority as, reading the Foreign Office paper, I sometimes feel some Foreign Office planners want to do. Now, as never before, we must identify in a hard-headed way, and well ahead of time, the real threats to us and to our people from tomorrow's world and identify from which direction they are coming, whether far or near. We will not be forgiven for failing to do that.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for introducing this debate and for doing it with his customary authority and command of the subject. His was a lucid and powerful overview of the overall foreign policy priorities from the position of a former diplomat, former ambassador, Permanent Secretary and, significantly, accounting officer.
	Our debate has been graced by many distinguished contributions, but none more so than from my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. The whole House owes my noble friend a debt of gratitude for his outstanding service as NATO's Secretary-General. It was a privilege to serve with him as a defence Minister; it was also a great deal of fun, as your Lordships will have been able to deduce from my noble friend's contribution. And it was a privilege to represent the United Kingdom at the last NATO Foreign Ministers' meeting, which he chaired last December. I said to him then that he would be greeted in your Lordships' House with enthusiasm and affection. I am very glad to see that, deservingly, that has been the case.
	I have a huge task in answering this wide-ranging debate. I start with thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wright, for his kind words about the FCO White Paper, published last December, which set out the United Kingdom's international priorities and how we intend to achieve them. It may be helpful to touch upon those in order to put my subsequent remarks about specific areas and policies into context.
	The strategy analyses changes in foreign policy since the end of the Cold War and publicly sets out for the first time our underlying assumptions about how the world will develop over the next decade. As domestic and foreign policy become increasingly intertwined, it has been important that our international priorities were not agreed with just one department but right the way across government as a whole, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright, noted.
	The White Paper identified nine priorities: a world safer from global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction—in regional terms the strategy puts the Middle East at the top of those priorities; protection of the United Kingdom from illegal immigration, drug trafficking and other international crime; an international system based on the rule of law, which is better able to resolve disputes and prevent conflicts; an effective EU in a secure neighbourhood; promotion of the United Kingdom's economic interests in an open and expanding global economy; sustainable development underpinned by democracy, good governance and human rights; security of United Kingdom and global energy supplies; security and good governance of our overseas territories; and delivering high quality public services.
	That is a very ambitious global agenda. The priorities are closely interconnected. Security is vitally important but it cannot be isolated from sustainable development or from robust international systems. If we are to fight terrorism and proliferation effectively, we need to promote democracy, good governance and human rights. To reduce poverty in Africa we must end the bitter cycles of conflict there.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is right; foreign policy does, indeed, take time. Results do not come overnight and consistency is vital. That is why we have drawn up a Foreign Office strategy. Underlying our approach is a strong commitment to a multilateral system. I agreed strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said. No one country, not even the superpower United States, can tackle this agenda alone. We look for collective international approaches underpinned by strong alliances, and the rule of law.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, put his finger on the central issue: do our policies and priorities really deliver what we want? They cannot be pursued in isolation and the strategy sets out our approach to the key relationships we need to achieve in order to progress these issues. Our most significant partnerships with other countries will be within the European Union and with the United States. There is no choice for us between the EU and the United States.
	In that respect I have a very honest disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Wright. Transatlantic partnership, not just between the United Kingdom and the United States but between the EU as a whole and the United States, is indeed essential if we are to make any progress on the issues that we really care about. In that context, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the United Kingdom is not so much a bridge between two camps as a catalyst for partnership to which a majority on both sides of the Atlantic remain deeply committed and which is vital for our future security and prosperity. We also need to develop our relationships with other key partners bilaterally through the EU and in particular with Russia, China, Japan and India.
	The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, spoke eloquently about our role in Iraq, and I thank him warmly for what he said. I believe, of course, that much of what he said is right. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, also devoted much of his address to Iraq, as did the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, together with my noble friends Lord Brennan, Lord Desai, Lord Mitchell and Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
	Some noble Lords have been trenchant and uncompromising in their reiteration of outright disagreement in principle to military intervention in Iraq. Others have expressed disquiet over particular aspects of conduct there. We continue to share the objective of a free, stable, unified Iraq and we remain committed to finishing the job that we have begun. Perhaps I may say, clearly, that I utterly reject the appalling accusations that were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, but I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Brennan for saying what he did early in our debate about human rights abuses in Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere. Such abuses are abhorrent. They are an affront to us all. They disgust every decent human being. I would go further and say that we went to Iraq to get rid of this sort of abuse, not to perpetuate it. The United States agrees, as I heard Colin Powell, the United States Secretary of State set out in Jordan clearly, frankly and unequivocally just 10 days ago.
	Rather than reflect on the recent past, perhaps I may look over what will happen in the next few months, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, asked. The handover to a sovereign Iraqi Government will take place on 30 June and we expect the announcement of the interim government to be made by Lakhdar Brahimi on or shortly before 31 May. The interim government will have self-imposed limitations of power reflecting the views of prominent Iraqis, not reflecting the views of limitations imposed from outside Iraq but from within Iraq, including Ayatollah Sistani. Those will be there so that an unelected government should not have powers to take fundamental decisions with long-term impact, particularly on constitutional issues before there is an elected government.
	Elections for the transitional national assembly will be held by the end of January 2005. The UN is due to announce the establishment of an electoral commission by the end of May. It estimates that it will then take eight months to prepare for the elections. I hope that your Lordships will be pleased to know that already 11 ministries have been transferred to the Iraqi authority.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, asked about the UNSCR. The text has been distributed to the Security Council and coalition partners and the initial response has been generally positive. We are still aiming for an agreed text by the end of the first week of June. The key goals of the Security Council resolution are to mark clearly a new phase in the political transition, reconfirm the mandate of the multinational force and to specify the future role of the United Nations.
	Security is a constant source of difficulty and anxiety, as I have seen from my own visits to Iraq. US and UK forces operate in very different areas with different challenges. Tactics in each area reflect the situation on the ground. We want to avoid violence and confrontation wherever possible but remain ready to use appropriate force as a last resort.
	The post-30 June security arrangements are crucial, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, argued. The Iraqi Government will be fully sovereign. Therefore, the multinational force will remain only at the invitation of that Iraqi Government. But the key is handing over to the Iraqis themselves. More than 131,000 Iraqis are currently providing security and there are now 78,000 Iraqi police working on the ground.
	I turn to the other big issue addressed by many noble Lords—the Middle East peace process. The noble Lords, Lord Wright of Richmond, Lord Biffen, Lord Weidenfeld, Lord Eden of Winton, Lord Jacobs and Lord Hylton, all concentrated on these points. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Wright, that we continue to attach the highest priority to this issue. All Ministers do and, as the Minister with particular responsibility, I do. But we do not do so to the exclusion of all else, and we do not do so as an excuse for lack of progress on other issues in the region.
	The announcement that Israel intends to withdraw the Israeli defence forces from Gaza and dismantle all Israeli settlements there as well as four in the West Bank will be a significant step towards the goal set out in the road map and in Security Council Resolution 1397, the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace.
	But as the Minister responsible for the Middle East let me make two points clear. First, any withdrawal must be without prejudice to the final status issues negotiated between the parties; that is, borders, refugees and Jerusalem. Secondly, the road map remains the best—indeed currently the only—way forward to the two-state solution; that is, Israel living in peace and security with its neighbours and Palestine stabilised as a viable and contiguous state.
	I thought that the quartet statement of 4 May made this position abundantly clear and went further. It came forward with some practical suggestions for how this could be achieved; suggestions about security, financial help for the Palestinian Authority administered by a trust fund through the World Bank and, vitally, work about monitoring developments on the ground.
	We support both sides taking actions in line with the road map, unilaterally or otherwise, provided it is done within the context of a road map. We are calling for Israel to co-ordinate its withdrawal from Gaza with the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority also needs to react positively to the initiative by taking the steps needed to improve security and its capacity to take responsibility for law and order.
	I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, said on this issue. Above all, it poisons so much else in the region. I have travelled widely in the past few weeks. I have been to four international conferences with colleagues in the Arab world in the past 12 days. Let there be no doubt that as far as they are concerned—I would say this is true of them all—this issue above any other, even that of Iraq with all the recent hurt that it has suffered, has to be tackled with determination, courage and understanding.
	I thought the communiqué from Tunis was very helpful. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, that I thought it addressed terrorism and organised crime and rejected what it called "the spirit of hate" in all its forms. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, to read the Arab League Tunis summit communiqué.
	In respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said, I agree that the Geneva accord is a bright light, but so is the Tunis summit statement, not least because it raises the whole question of Arab modernisation—of democracy, economic reform, development in a civil society, tackling poverty, human rights and the rights of women. It put them firmly on the Arab League agenda.
	So I hope that the G8 will pick up these initiatives at the Sea Island summit and react in a spirit of partnership, acknowledging, as all people of common sense must, that reform comes from within a country—it cannot be imposed from outside—and that the countries in the region are in many ways as different as we Europeans are from each other.
	I turn to the points made about NATO by my noble friend Lord Robertson and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. As your Lordships are aware, NATO heads of government and states will meet in Istanbul at the end of June. The agenda will focus on three main issues—operation, capabilities and partnership. We want to use the summit to encourage the additional military assets required by ISAF's expanding operations in Afghanistan. A decision to terminate the SFOR operation in Bosnia is also likely. That will pave the way for a UK-led EU stabilisation force to take over.
	Progress on the Prague capability commitment set out by my noble friend Lord Robertson in 2002, will also be reviewed. The recent accession of the seven new allies provides an opportune time to modernise NATO's partnership programmes. The Mediterranean dialogue should be made more substantive with more focus on practical co-operation. Discussion will also take place on establishing a series of relationships with countries in the wider Middle East—if that is what they want. NATO is also planning to hold meetings with Ukraine and Russia.
	Perhaps I may turn to some of the geographically specific issues which were raised. I think that Iraq and the Middle East peace process are rather different in this respect, so I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on Iran. In contrast with our friends the United States of America, we believe that the best approach to Iran is our policy of critical engagement. Iran is too important and complex to ignore. We are better able to promote reform through frequent dialogue. We share key interests in regional stability and drugs, but of course we are very aware of the difficulties in dealing with Iran.
	We have grave concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, its human rights record and its support for terrorism and for groups that oppose with violence the Middle East peace process. The EU has stressed that relations cannot develop without concrete Iranian action to address human rights concerns. The UK and most EU partners co-sponsored a Canadian-run resolution on human rights in Iran at UNGA last year.
	We welcome Iran's progress so far in disclosing its past deceit about its nuclear programme. But Iran still has a great deal to do to satisfy the international community. We want to work more closely with Iran to defeat terrorism. We also want deeper EU commercial relationships with Iran.
	I assure the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, that we are trying to reach out to the Iranian media. I hope that he will be pleased to know I actually spent an hour with the Iranian media this week doing exactly that.
	My noble friend Lord Desai concentrated his remarks on India and Pakistan, as did the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, with whom I agree very warmly indeed. Over the weekend the new Indian Government was sworn in. That was the climax to what was a thrilling exercise in vibrant democracy by the world's largest electorate.
	The relationship between India and the UK is very good. Co-operation with India is essential to achieving at least six of our eight strategic priorities. We have shared interests in tackling key global challenges—terrorism, environmental degradation, climate change, drugs, international crime, illegal migration and people trafficking, regional conflicts and impediments to trade.
	The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, also touched on the issues in relation to Pakistan. Her Majesty's Government welcome the recent public statements made by the new Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the external Minister Natwar Singh for confirming their commitment to strengthening, widening and deepening India's bilateral relations and continuing the peace process with Pakistan.
	The Pakistani Government have also reaffirmed publicly their continued commitment to improving relations with India and the peace process. We hope that the Indian and Pakistani Governments will continue to build confidence through their peaceful engagement. As a friend of both countries, we, and indeed our key international allies, stand ready to assist and support India and Pakistan as they move forward.
	My noble friend Lord Parekh and the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, spoke—some movingly—about Africa. A more prosperous, stable and peaceful Africa would benefit not only Africans, but the entire world community. Terrorism, illegal immigration, instability and, above all, poverty in Africa have implications outside that continent.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for his encouragement of our role in trying to bring together the parties in Zimbabwe. I agree that there is a vital role for Zimbabwe's neighbours to support that process.
	Currently we are spending a great deal more in Africa than in the past. The amount has risen rapidly over the past 10 years. By 2005–06, the United Kingdom will have increased its annual bilateral assistance to sub-Saharan Africa to £1 billion. Africa will be a priority for the United Kingdom in the run up to our G8 and EU presidencies and beyond.
	As part of our commitment to the G8 Africa Action Plan, we have focused on key action areas, such as peace, security, governance, trade, education and HIV/AIDS. Again, the spread of retroviral drugs is very much to be welcomed, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, said.
	Conflict remains a huge barrier to Africa's development. We support conflict prevention, management and resolution initiatives in Africa and are actively engaged in the peace processes in Somalia, Sudan, DRC and Uganda.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, spoke with her customary passion about Darfur. I can tell her that a UN presidential statement was issued yesterday, following intensive work by the United Kingdom with our international partners. It expressed grave concern at the situation in Darfur and called for the parties to protect civilians and facilitate access to humanitarian organisations.
	The Sudanese have announced that they will issue visas to humanitarian agencies within 48 hours. I shall keep the matter under review. I am happy to talk further to the noble Baroness on the issue. I agree with her that this is a terrible and vicious problem and that we ought to engage with the area more.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke about Cyprus. We respect the outcome of both referendums and the Cypriots' right to decide. I shall try to be as clear as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked. We regret that an opportunity was missed for a settlement. The Secretary-General's plan is the result of many years of work and we believe that it is a fair and balanced compromise that offers a real prospect to Cyprus to move forward as a united island within the European Union.
	We look forward to the Secretary-General's report on the talks about the future of his Good Offices mission. I want to be clear on this: we see no prospect for an early resumption of talks. Now is a time for thought. It is an opportunity for the Greek Cypriots to reflect on whether their choice was the right one for them, for Cyprus and for the European Union.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that we have a duty to those Turkish Cypriots who voted in favour of a settlement and EU membership. I think that I spelt that out fairly clearly the other day when I spoke in your Lordships' House.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, spoke about Colombia. I fully agree with him that UK military aid is not fuelling the conflict. Our aid is helping to dispose of bombs, build democratic accountability for the Armed Forces and develop better rules for engagement. Stopping the aid would hurt the people we are trying to help.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the subject of Serbia. In Kosovo in particular, as the noble Lord said, there is much to be done, as the March violence exposed. Minorities, particularly the Kosovo Serb minority, need to feel safe and to have access to institutions and services. The Kosovo Government need to be given support, but they also need to show that they really are capable of exercising more responsibility, most importantly on the economy.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised interfaith dialogue. In particular, we have supported the Alexandria process under the guidance of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey. We have supported work on the Israel/Palestinian interfaith dialogue, and we are supporting work on interfaith dialogue in Iraq. We were doing that as recently as last weekend in a seminar. We also support the work in Africa of Coventry cathedral.
	Our support has been not only in terms of participation but also in terms of hard cash. At home we have an outreach programme trying to bring together the faith communities across a whole range of discussion on foreign policy issues. As an example of that commitment, we held the first ever multi-faith week in the FCO from 7 to 11 October last year. I would be happy to discuss that further with any right reverend Prelate on the Bishops' Benches or other noble Lords who feel that it would be helpful.
	The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked about funding for human rights. The FCO will continue to support grassroots human rights, good governance and democracy projects. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, since 1998 the Human Rights Project Fund has funded more than 700 projects in more than 90 countries, worth £30 million. With the creation last year of the new Global Opportunities Fund, which ran in parallel with the Human Rights Project Fund, the FCO supported more than 150 new human rights, good governance and democracy projects, which were worth over £11 million.
	International action against torture is a priority for the Government. We launched an initiative to tackle torture throughout the world in 1998. We are lobbying for the ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I shall write to the noble Baroness to fill in more of the substance on that point.
	The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, directed our attention to counter-terrorism. That is a priority for the Government. Security Council Resolution 1373, passed in September 2001, set the standard for states and made them accountable for their performance. All states have now reported to the counter-terrorism committee at least once; this country has reported four times. In March the Security Council decided to strengthen the committee further, and last week the Secretary-General of the United Nations appointed the first executive director to lead a strengthened expert team. We wish him well; he will enjoy our full support.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke with real conviction about establishing a foreign policy committee in your Lordships' House. Sadly, on this occasion, I do not agree that that is a real priority. That is certainly not because I am not happy to answer noble Lords' questions or indeed noble Lords' debates in this House, which I always enjoy. But he was right when he said that it was a matter for the House itself. It is very much in noble Lords' hands if they wish to take the matter forward.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for his acknowledgement of the importance of the British Council and the BBC World Service. I would not wish them to go unmentioned, as they are very important aids to us in taking forward our priorities, as he rightly acknowledged.
	The noble Lords, Lord Wright of Richmond, Lord Alderdice, Lord Selsdon, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Howell of Guildford, all concentrated quite a lot on transatlantic relations. Of course the context of our transatlantic relationships has changed fundamentally over the past 15 years. The common threat from the Soviet Union that unified Americans and Europeans has disappeared. That is a very good thing, as we all know. The European continent is firmly on the path to freedom and prosperity.
	However, the end of that overwhelming threat means that we must find new ways of co-operating. The major task for Europe and America is now to build a common approach to the challenges and threats of the 21st century. To some, the disagreements over Iraq have demonstrated that Europe and America view those threats very differently. Iraq exposed divisions not only between Europe and the United States but also within Europe. But both Europeans and the United States have made clear that we want to move beyond those differences. On the fundamentals, including the threat that Saddam Hussein posed, we agreed fundamentally. As the European Security Strategy, published in December last year, demonstrates, Europe and the US agree that the major threats we face come from WMD, terrorism and failing states. We also agree that we must tackle a broader agenda, including climate change, poverty and disease, in order to build a global consensus based on security and justice.
	Noble Lords have debated a huge agenda today. The FCO's network of 233 posts is a vital asset in advancing this global agenda. It is a delivery mechanism for the whole of government, not just the FCO. Over half the staff who work in it are engaged in providing information services, consular and commercial support and visas. We consider that public service role an absolute priority in its own right.
	To excel in all those areas is a very tall order for an organisation that employs fewer people than Harrods and costs less than 0.25 per cent of GDP. To achieve our aims, the FCO will need to become more flexible, better able to make use of diverse talent and work even more closely with other government departments in this country and with multilateral organisations overseas.
	I have worked in and around Whitehall for almost 28 years, in a variety of different government departments and representing senior civil servants as a whole. I commend to noble Lords the diplomatic corps, whose expertise and commitment are the rock upon which our foreign policy is built. Under the leadership of Sir Michael Jay, the Foreign Office has become more open and responsive and has reached out more, not only overseas, but to communities in this country, too. It has a clear path set ahead now, through its strategic objectives, and the men and women who work for it should be a real source of pride to all of us.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, this has been an important and wide-ranging debate. I am extremely grateful to the many noble Lords who have taken part. I thank and congratulate, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, on his excellent maiden speech. I also thank the Minister for the characteristically comprehensive, courteous and skilful way in which she has summed up the debate.
	I take fully the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on my proposal that foreign affairs might be somehow separated from defence or international development in the Queen's Speech debates. Perhaps that is not a sensible way to proceed. But I am very grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate on what the Minister referred to as our global agenda.
	I suggest tentatively that the House authorities, business managers and the Government might view positively the idea that we should have such wide-ranging debates more often than, say, six months, which is about the strike rate at the moment. Although I retired from the Diplomatic Service 13 years ago, I think that I am still allowed to be grateful to the Minister for her remarks on it. Our role in international affairs is too important not to be given a wider airing from time to time.
	I hope also that the House authorities and the Government will look sympathetically on the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that this House should be given more opportunity in its committee system to review and scrutinise international affairs more widely than the present restriction to scrutinising European affairs—I do not suppose that one could call European affairs limited.
	I apologise to my noble friend Lord Joffe for the extent to which my debate may have transgressed the time allotted to his important Cross-Bench debate on charitable donations, which noble Lords are about to enjoy. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Charitable Giving

Lord Joffe: rose to call attention to the 25 per cent fall since 1992 in charitable giving as a percentage of gross domestic product; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, there is a widespread illusion that the British give generously to charity. Sadly, however, the statistics tell a very different story.
	It must be said that, for a number of complex reasons, the statistics for voluntary giving are far from satisfactory. However, they are reliable enough to reflect trends, as outlined in a telling speech last year by Stephen Ainger, the chief executive of the Charities Aid Foundation. Those trends sparked off today's debate, in respect of which I declare an interest as the chair of the Giving Campaign.
	The trend period upon which I will focus runs from 1992 to 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available. During that period, personal incomes have risen in real terms on average by more than 25 per cent; personal wealth has more than doubled; the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, has introduced a range of very attractive tax benefits with the objective of stimulating giving; the charitable sector has become much more professional in fundraising; and the very wealthy have prospered as never before. With all those positives, one would have expected the level of individual giving as a percentage of GDP to have increased dramatically. Instead it has fallen from 1.2 per cent in 1992 to 0.9 per cent in 2002, a fall of 25 per cent.
	In seeking to explore the reasons why the level of giving has not risen in line with the growth of incomes, it emerges that the poor who give to charity give on average three times as much as a proportion of their income as the better off, the top 20 per cent of whom give on average only 0.7 per cent. So, we find that the poor, who cannot really afford it, are considerably more generous than the well-off, who can. This is even more astonishing when regard is paid to the statistics that show that the wealthiest 1 per cent of the population own close to one quarter of the total marketable wealth, while the poorest half of the population own between them only 5 per cent. It follows from those statistics that if the level of giving is to increase significantly, that increase must largely come from the well-off substantially increasing the level of their giving. Unless the very wealthy set an example, it is unlikely that this increase will happen.
	The definitive guide to the richest 1,000 people in Britain today is the Sunday Times 2004 Rich List. The qualification level to make the list is wealth of £40 million or more. In this year's list, it is recorded that Britain's super-rich have never had it so good, with their wealth in excess of £200 billion having almost doubled in the past four years. The Rich List also contains the Sunday Times Giving Index, which ranks the 30 most generous philanthropists in the Rich List based on the amount that they give expressed as a percentage of their wealth. The top seven in that index were generous, each having given more than 5 per cent of their wealth in recent donations, headed by the splendid example of Tom Hunter, the Scottish industrialist, who committed £100 million, which was one fifth of his wealth, to charity.
	However, of the 10 richest billionaires in Britain, with wealth ranging downwards from £7.5 billion to £2.2 billion, only two, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and Hans Rausing, figure in the Giving Index. The other eight, including such well known billionaires as Sir Richard Branson, Philip Green and Bernie Ecclestone, either have not qualified or have failed to provide information as to their giving. If it emerges that in fact they were very generous, that would be good news. It is important to recognise that those who have provided information as to their giving in the Rich List have done so not in order to flaunt their wealth, but rather in the hope that they are setting an example for others to follow. It would be encouraging if next year the others in the Rich List followed this example.
	It is instructive to compare what the wealthy in the USA give in relation to their counterparts over here. In December last year, Business Week published a list of the 50 most generous philanthropists in the USA. Bill Gates headed the list, having given away 23 billion US dollars over five years, which is about half his present wealth, while Gordon Moore, cofounder of Intel, at number two donated 7 billion US dollars, which is more than his current wealth. In the top 50 in the USA, 30 had given away more than 10 per cent of their current wealth. With such generosity among the very wealthy in the USA, it is easy to understand why over the period 1992 to 2002, charitable giving has increased by 15 per cent as a percentage of GDP, in contrast to our own 25 per cent fall, although I should add that it is not in all respects a valid, like-by-like comparison.
	The reason for the disparity in giving compared to the USA is a difference in culture. In the USA, it is generally accepted by the well-off that they have a responsibility to give at least part of their wealth to the society that made it possible for them to accumulate such wealth. As a result, in the USA giving is celebrated. Those who give earn and deserve respect from their society for their generosity. In the UK, unfortunately giving is not a defining characteristic of the well-off. It is argued that in the UK many of the well-off prefer to avoid publicity and give anonymously, and that as a result their giving is not taken into account in the statistics. This is true in some cases, but it is often the excuse of those of the well-off who do not give generously, or at all, but prefer not to admit it.
	The question arises as to whether we should be seeking to influence the well-off to increase their giving to charity. After all, giving is a personal matter, and there is no way that we can compel individuals to give more than they wish to. Whether we decide to try to influence them depends on the kind of society that we would like to have in this country. Is it to be one where the wealthy and the well-off focus solely upon their own gratification, and accumulate yachts, homes, personal jets, fleets of motorcars and other playthings, and show little regard for those less fortunate than themselves? Or do we want a caring society, in keeping with British tolerance and sense of fairness, where everyone contributes as generously as they can to make it a better society for all? It is the latter for which we should be aiming, and the initial objective for which we should aim is to double the level of giving to charities over the next 10 years. As to the range of initiatives that should be taken to achieve this, a new book to be published next month, Why the Rich Give written by Theresa Lloyd of Philanthropy UK, a project of the Association of Charitable Foundations, is essential reading.
	I do not believe that the majority of the well-off are mean and uncaring. They do give, but unfortunately their giving is reactive rather than planned. If they see pictures on TV of starving children, or if they are asked to give, they often respond—sometimes generously. However, they seldom plan their giving by relating the amount that they give to their income and wealth. If they did this periodically I do not doubt that they would spontaneously wish to increase the level of their giving. I recall Michael Brophy, a previous chief executive of the Charities Aid Foundation, making a point at meetings of asking the people there to put up their hands if they gave more than 1 per cent of their incomes to charity. It was astonishing how few put up their hands, but how many subsequently said that having thought about it, they had immediately increased the amount that they intended to give.
	The natural starting point in changing our approach to giving by the well-off is to establish benchmarks. Many people just have no idea of how much it would be reasonable for them to give. I suggest an initial benchmark for our society as a whole of an average of 1.5 per cent of income or wealth. Within that general benchmark, the starting figure for the well-off—whom I define as having incomes in excess of £100,000 a year—would be 2 per cent, going upwards depending on the wealth and income of the individual concerned and going down to virtually nothing for those who struggle to survive on annual incomes of £10,000 or less.
	Surprisingly, there is considerable opposition to benchmarks, mostly, I suspect, by those who do not give generously, or at all. The rationale for this opposition is difficult to follow. While no one has a right to determine how much somebody else should give, it is not unreasonable, in a society where we are all dependent on one another, to suggest guidelines as to what may be reasonable. It is not as if benchmarks on giving are something new. Most faiths lay down specific guidelines. Christian faiths often follow 10 per cent, with 5 per cent to go to the Church and 5 per cent to other good causes. For Islam, the starting point is 2.5 per cent, with charity beyond this encouraged. For Hindus, it is according to ability and position and up to 50 per cent, while for Sikhs 10 per cent is specified in the Code of Conduct, and the amount for Jews is also 10 per cent. I am not suggesting that we should leap to these levels at this stage.
	However, having established benchmarks we should, as in the USA, celebrate the giving of those whose giving matches these benchmarks, or even more those who exceed them. Naturally, the key players—whose job it is to influence both the well-off and the not so well-off to give to charity—are the charities themselves. They must face up to the challenge of proving to donors that they are making a real and positive difference to society; that they are efficient and effective; and that they appreciate and value the support of those who contribute to their work. Having accepted this responsibility, charities must tailor the level of their "ask" to the income and wealth of the donor, and not be frightened to ask for generous donations from those who can afford them. Increasingly, charities should take potentially generous donors out to show them their work so that such donors gain an understanding of what it is like to live in poverty, or to be without shelter or food, or dying of AIDS. When the wealthy have seen such suffering and realised that they can make a difference, I believe they will want to give generously.
	The corporate sector and the Civil Service also have an important role to play in individual giving through encouraging payroll giving. This is an extremely tax- effective way for employees to give. In the USA, 32 per cent of employees are enrolled for payroll giving. The corresponding figure in the UK is only a tiny 2 per cent.
	The Government have done a great deal to encourage individual giving through the generous tax incentives introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by their wide-ranging support of the voluntary sector. While there is a limit to what government can do, a change in the legislation relating to new trust structures based on the American experience—enabling donors to get immediate tax relief on gifts, but to draw income as well for a prescribed period—would attract very substantial endowments.
	The media too have increasingly made a positive contribution in profiling generous donors—and, in the case of the Sunday Times, in creating a giving index—and will, it is to be hoped, focus more on the positive aspects of the charitable sector in future. If the charitable sector, the business sector, government and the media work in partnership to spread the message of the importance of planned giving—with an emphasis on relating the level of giving to wealth and income—I believe that over a period of 10 years it should be possible to meet the target of doubling the level of voluntary giving in real terms. Although individual giving in the period 1992–2002 has fallen so dramatically as a proportion of GDP, the potential is there greatly to increase this level. Already in the past three years, despite the crash of the stock market, the level of giving has begun to rise.
	We would be well on our way to achieving this target, if the 1,000 members of the rich list with wealth in excess of £200 billion were, on average, to increase their giving from 0.7 per cent to 1.7 per cent—which they can so easily afford. This alone would raise the current level of giving by £2 billion to £9.3 billion, and would set an example to the other 230,000 millionaires in the UK and to the mass affluent.
	As a society we must do better. One hopes that the better-off, rather than the poor, will lead the way. I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, like every other noble Lord who will speak in this debate, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. The issues he highlights are of great concern to all those of us who work in or fund the charitable sector, and he is to be congratulated on enabling us to air those concerns. It is certainly the case that we have not been successful in promoting individual philanthropy as the United States has been—either just to encourage giving, or to encourage the establishment of new foundations. It is interesting to speculate, as he has done, about the reasons for this, and I commend his recommendations to your Lordships.
	However, I am more optimistic about the current situation than the noble Lord. In the few minutes available to me I will draw attention to some of the reasons why I take a more positive view of the prospects for giving. As this is my last day as chair of the New Opportunities Fund—the largest of the lottery's good causes distributors—I will start with the lottery. Let us be clear—people do not play the lottery to give money to charity. They play because they think they may win. However, what the 28 pence in the pound that goes to good causes represents to them is a consolation for not winning. It is difficult to over-emphasise what that consolation has done for individuals and communities in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years. That £15 billion has a made a huge difference to every community in our country.
	On my last day, your Lordships may perhaps forgive me for emphasising the particular contribution of the New Opportunities Fund. Before we were set up, lottery good causes relied largely on groups and individuals coming forward with ideas for project funding. We set out to do something different. We wanted to target the needs of disadvantaged communities, work more strategically and invest funding in specific initiatives on health, education and the environment, priority areas for government where lottery funding could add real value. I am very proud of what we have achieved. The results of our £2 billion are truly transformational: 500,000 new childcare places; 350,000 Healthy Living Centres; and £750 million invested in school and community sports facilities. I could go on. A huge impact has been made, and I know that the successor body to the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund—the Big Lottery Fund—will continue to encourage innovation and transform communities. No causal link has ever been shown between people playing the lottery and giving less to charity. Even if it had been, what the lottery has achieved in 10 years would surely be some compensation.
	I turn to trusts and foundations. We may be worried about what we do not have in terms of individual giving, but we should celebrate the huge resource that existing trusts and foundations provide for the voluntary and community sector. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, led one such foundation, to which I had every reason to be grateful, when I headed a carers' charity. When I speak in other countries—the United States, Canada, France, Australia, New Zealand—about the campaigns that I have run to get carers on the political and social agenda and describe how those campaigns, even those for new Acts of Parliament, have been funded by charitable trusts, my audiences are consumed with envy that we can be supported in that way in this country. It is true that some trusts and foundations are not as open and accountable as they should be or as willing to embrace new methods of working or encouraging different ways of supporting the work of charities, but many set an excellent example, and many others will follow.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, reminded us, we must also accept that many charities are reluctant to accept change as readily as they ought to. They are too set on constantly complaining about how much more money they need and the circumstances in which they should get it. That is not always helpful. Many charities, though, constantly seek and find new ways of getting individuals, companies, trusts and statutory funders involved in their work. They are realistic about what they seek and honest about what they can offer in return. Above all, they recognise that giving of any kind is a two-way street. We must understand and meet the needs of our donors, as the noble Lord reminded us, as well as expecting them to meet ours.
	I shall mention one other area that fills me with optimism. I have the honour to be the president of Volunteering England, a charity that is willing to embrace change, however painful—mergers are often painful, as I have reason to know—in order to make itself more responsive to constituents and stakeholders. In the view of Volunteering England, willingness to make charitable contributions is alive, well and living here, not only in terms of money but—even more important—in terms of time. A huge amount of time is donated to communities every week. Recent surveys suggest that between 39 per cent and 48 per cent of the adult population volunteer their time through an organisation. If we widen the definition to something more like a good neighbour-type scheme, the figures can nearly be doubled. That means that communities benefit from 88 million hours of volunteer time each week. If we were to equate that with money, it would mean that the country benefited to the tune of between £16 billion and £40 billion a year.
	We should recognise that the Government have done much to support and further volunteering and voluntary action. We have every reason to be grateful for that. There is, of course, more work to be done. We know that there are barriers to people's participation as volunteers and that they need to be addressed. However, there are things that we can do, and one of them is to keep volunteering on the policy agenda and in the public eye. That is why, when we talk about giving money, we should also take the opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous generosity and resource that is volunteer time.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is as ever a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who made a characteristic speech on a subject on which she is much better informed than I am, and on a day of personal moment. It is only sad that so little of the £750 million for school sports facilities has so far been spent.
	The whole of your Lordships' House is in debt to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for securing this debate. That is not so much because of the coincidence of the draft charities Bill pre-legislative scrutiny—this Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, is concerned with inputs whereas the draft Bill obviously goes wider—but because it is the sort of Motion that your Lordships' House handles well, which reflects on a serious issue being looked at with the perspective of a decade's passage. His Motion is an exception to C S Lewis's observation that if you hear someone going round doing good to others, you can always tell the others by their hunted look.
	I should declare an interest as the founder of two tiny trusts under the Charities Aid Foundation umbrella.
	We are paying a small price for the other excellent mega debate put forward by another Cross-Bencher, so my remarks will be confined to three brief points. First, this is a subject where we are comparatively bereft of statistics. I am sure that noble Lords will be familiar with the chart which shows charitable giving at just under £5 billion in 1992, rising to £7.3 billion in 2002. Firm figures for 2003 are not yet available. Those are not, however, the figures on which the 25 per cent decline over the decade referred to in the Motion is calculated. To those bare figures, which represent specific donations, have been added in the calculation both legacies and taxback returns, which have also individually benefited charities. On those cumulative figures, both of course constructed on the same lines in 1992 and 2002, the 25 per cent calculation was made. The taxback return has played a disproportionate role since the Chancellor's revision of gift aid in 2000, which I welcome.
	Secondly, there are incidental factors that may have played a particular part in the decline identified by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. The base year of 1992 saw the country still in recession, which provided a lower denominator for the GDP. The approach of the lottery in the decade's early years alarmed the NCVO for its potential effect on charitable giving, a subject addressed by the noble Baroness in her speech.
	We visited that subject in detail with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Second Reading of another recent Bill. I shall not weary your Lordships by returning to that now. But it is worth remarking that the purchase of a lottery ticket, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, involves a donation to good causes, albeit not one that is susceptible to gift aid treatment. If the audited ticket sales of the National Lottery are added up from its inception in November 1994 to the end of March 2003, to run with the year 2002, and then apply a 28 per cent multiplier—I appreciate that 28 per cent applies to the main lottery draw and not to other sales; but 28 per cent is a rough and ready proxy—an average annual donation of £0.45 billion is produced.
	Of course, I acknowledge that not all good causes will have been charities, but those considerations are also against the background of a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies which found that,
	"neither the number of people giving to charity nor the level of donations has changed significantly following the Lottery's introduction".
	The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, has identified a series of qualitative as against quantitative factors, which might be described as cultural: I shall not rehearse them again. However, I shall make one point about the decline in traditionalist giving, as for instance exemplified by falling congregations in churches, and the rise of modernisation, which is exemplified in the fact that it is the strong brands in the large charities which are at a relative advantage in attracting growing donations. The latter is a function of more professional fundraising, but that has a genuine read across to the world of traditionalist giving. In that context, I wonder how many of the 43 dioceses of the Church of England have dedicated officers who encourage legacies from their diocesan population. I suspect that the one where I largely worship does not.
	Thirdly, I recall a leading article in the Economist in the aftermath of my noble friend Lord Lawson reducing the top rate of tax to 40 per cent in 1988, when I was at the Treasury. The article, in approaching the final decade of the 20th century—the decade that is the subject of this debate—drew its readers' attention to the first Edwardian decade of the century when the bourgeoisie had flowered and blossomed in cultural generosity. I am genuinely admiring of this Government's streamlining of tax effectiveness in giving, which built on the previous government's own pioneering efforts.
	But as we look forward in this decade, I hope that a government of one colour or another can look with favour on the recommendation of Sir Nicholas Goodison in the report Mr Boateng, the Chief Secretary, commissioned from him. It concerned the extension of acceptance in lieu where the donation of cultural objects of pre-eminent quality could be set against ordinary income as well as against inheritance tax, as they now can be. Cultural objects are not just works of art but can embrace books and archives as well.
	That can already be done in the United States. But perhaps even more importantly and relevantly, it can already be done here for gifts of shares. Common sense suggests that as both shares and cultural objects are subject to inheritance tax where acceptance in lieu applies, common treatment of gifts in life could sensibly be harmonised, not least in the interests of the admirable Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for this debate. I congratulate him on his chairmanship of the Giving Campaign, which is just coming to a close after a tremendous effort to raise awareness and donations. I regret to say that although the list of speakers says that I have 10 minutes, I have six like all other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Shutt has the extra four minutes. I shall give my brief overview in the form of necessary generalisations.
	If one was brought up on the notion of faith, hope and charity, today one would have to talk about scepticism, angst and greed. The acronym of that is "SAG", which is happening to donations. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for looking this full in the eye. There is far too much triumphalism in the voluntary sector. Perhaps I may dare to say to as distinguished and experienced a speaker as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, that I think that there was a touch of that in what she said about volunteering.
	I, too, am a patron of the organisation to which she referred. Although the statistics on volunteering do not have an exactly common base, in 1997 the National Survey of Volunteering showed, for example, that 48 per cent of the adult population took part in formal voluntary activity. The Home Office Citizenship Survey in 2001 showed that figure dropping to 39 per cent. The proportion undertaking informal voluntary activity fell from 74 per cent in 1997 to 67 per cent in 2001. I emphasise that there is no precise commonality of base. But, none the less, that is not a jolly tale on any reckoning.
	We need to be honest with ourselves about what is happening. I would say that there is heart failure in the question of giving. It is stunning that the poorest 10 per cent of income earners are giving more than three times more of their income than the top 10 per cent. One has to ask why. I shall spend a minute or two addressing that issue because unless we have some understanding of the reasons we will not get far.
	The first thing that strikes me is that we work in a world where both parents work. The role of women who used to stay at home, bring up families and look after the home has changed. That has had an impact. Pressure at work has had a huge impact on giving and the attitude towards giving. The pressure under which many people work now, the hours that they work, the commuting that they have to undertake separates them from a community existence where they cannot see that they need to make a contribution in order for that community to thrive. There is a disconnectedness about so much of that lifestyle, particularly of the richer section of the population. I suppose that the City of London is the great exemplar of the decommunalised existence that so many people now lead.
	With that, one must face the fact that the values of our day are excessively materialist and consumerist. The idealism, belief, philosophy or faith, call it what you will, that most of us grew up with and are aware of is no longer as evident. If one looks at the media, of whatever kind, one sees reflections of that.
	Let us look at the values of business, in particular big business. In the City life is nasty, brutish and short; it is short-termist to the last degree. The value of stocks and shares is driven exclusively by what they can deliver to the so-called bottom line. The shareholding community and the share-broking profession have little or no regard for anything other than the accretion of profit. So, too, the view held of salaries is quite shocking. If anything reported last week in the Sunday Telegraph about the pay-off made to the boss of Shell, who so disgraced that great company, is true, that is but the latest example.
	That whole world is unsustainable. It has become demoralised, in the literal sense of the word. Until we do something about the prevailing culture and restore to it a measure of the sense of value and purpose which, without being too nostalgic, did exist to a greater degree in the past, I do not think that much can be done to increase giving by the rich. Ultimately, charity is about caritas, the word for love, and it is about feeling and heart; it is not about tax breaks or mechanistic considerations. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, indicated, tax breaks have themselves become extraordinarily generous over the past decade or so. They should have a countervailing effect that would be likely to increase the level of giving.
	I believe that we cannot look to the Government to bail us out of this situation. In some ways, the Government have become too involved in the charity sector. The independence, diversity and voluntary nature of this sector is a priceless jewel which must be preserved against any tendencies working in the opposite direction. Some of those tendencies may crop up in the charities Bill.
	Above all, we have to try to restore balance to the lives of many people in this country. They would give more if they experienced community existence. That would point them in the direction of need and put them in juxtaposition with it. Without that, the giving proposition is too theoretical and intellectual.
	I end by thanking once again the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for raising this subject for debate.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for drawing attention to the fall in charitable giving in real money terms in this country, despite an upturn in giving in pure money terms. I am conscious, as a Bishop in the Church of England, that I speak from a privileged position. The Church of England has been a beneficiary of the generosity of women and men for countless generations down the centuries, and continues to know great and, indeed, sacrificial generosity from those of today's generation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, said that he would like some more statistics. I am prepared to give him one or two to help him along. The Charities Aid Foundation shows that the average monthly donation to charity in 2002 was £12.93, while the Church's data show that the average monthly planned giving to the Church in the previous year, 2001, was £30.46. That statistic is mirrored in CAF's finding that average giving to charity by the population as a whole is 0.9 per cent of income, while average giving to the Church is around 2.8 per cent of income.
	The Church of England, like many others, uses gift aid well. Information suggests that 13 per cent of the total tax refunded by the Inland Revenue to charities comes to the Church of England.
	The Church is, however, an agent rather than merely a beneficiary or recipient of charitable giving. It is an agent of mission, ministry and education, one that looks to serve local communities in their quest for hope, mercy and justice in society; and it is an agent in having a special concern always for the poor and the marginalised. Furthermore the Church holds in guardian trusteeship for the whole nation a wealth of heritage buildings in the shape of the cathedrals and parish churches of the land. It has a built heritage that I am glad to say is increasingly visited and valued while playing a vital role in the life, education and enjoyment of whole communities.
	The Churches, along with other faith communities, shoulder considerable social responsibilities within the many communities that comprise our nation. The local church, funded by the charitable contributions of local people, uses money to counsel those who are bereaved and sick, to visit the sick and those in trouble, and to work with schools. In the Southwell diocese we sponsor an activity in our cathedral twice a year in conjunction with local schools. It is called "Time Travelling". Some 8,500 children visit Southwell Minster over two weeks each year as a part of their national curriculum key stages one and two studies. Since 1995, some 85,000 children have taken part in this exciting project, one that is funded by charitable moneys.
	Similarly, over the past two years the Church in my own diocese has funded two new secondary schools post-Dearing in partnership with Nottingham City Council for one school and Nottingham County Council for the other. The Church also uses money to run youth projects, holiday clubs, after school clubs, mums and toddlers groups, social clubs and luncheon clubs for the elderly. We provide premises, often at low or no cost, for local groups such as the scouts and guides, social groups, Alcoholics Anonymous and so forth.
	In isolated rural communities the local church is often the only focus for community activities. In one parish in my diocese, St Bartholomew's, Kneesall, in the absence of a village hall or any kind of public facility, the church—a heritage building—after much difficulty has been reordered so that the whole of the chancel is available as a space for the use of the community to carry out all its activities.
	The case is similar in our urban areas. In my diocese charitable giving has helped to establish a multi-racial centre at St Stephen's, Hyson Green, with particular emphasis on work with asylum seekers. The Vine Community Centre houses lots of projects which are both cross-cultural and cross-generational. One such is a young families' project, PALS, which provides a breakfast club, daily pre-school and lunch club from Monday to Friday for local children aged from as young as two years and upwards while supporting their parents and carers through a drop-in café with family worker support. Many of the children come from Muslim backgrounds whose parents specifically choose a faith context for their children's care.
	Right in the heart of Nottingham city there is an ecumenical venture, the Malt Cross Project. It serves young people who are part of the amazing nightlife culture of the city today. It is a very vibrant nightlife, but also one where there is drink and drug abuse. Activities like these are mirrored throughout the country. The Church strives to keep contact with local people.
	The question is: what do we look to the Government to provide? May I suggest that good government encourages and promotes the flourishing of the good and all that makes for cohesion and social harmony. Good government at the national level models good practice and ethical behaviour, responding generously to public need in times of crisis both at home and abroad. Good government should be in dedicated pursuit of achieving our national commitment to the United Nations overseas aid target of 0.7 per cent, which we still do not reach. Good government pursues efficiency, enterprise and prudence in the workings of every department of state and tries to build capacity in communities through partnership. We in the Church of England are profoundly grateful for the partnership that we have enjoyed to date.
	Continual creativity, imagination and vision are required on the part of government, working with charities, if we are to harness the generosity of spirit that has long been a feature of the people of these islands. I believe that unless government energetically strives to create and regulate well the whole world of charity, we run the danger of losing the enormous amount of pro bono publico work that characterises many parts of our society.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of UNICEF. It is very much in that context that I should like to address the House.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for drawing the attention of the House to what is, on the face of it, a grotesque anomaly. It is all the more grotesque because even the most casual observer of what is going on in the world cannot fail to be struck by the vast and ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor. You also would have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid not to understand the clear relationship between poverty, desperation and social unrest, leading in many cases to what we now describe as terrorism. It is my belief that, in every sense, poverty is the breeding ground, the constant recruiting sergeant, of terrorism.
	There are those who prefer to hide behind the old adage that the poor will always be with us. To them I say that the new, corrosive element in the mix is the growth of visible inequality. It is the constant "in your face" reminder to the poor that another world exists in parallel to theirs—a world of apparent endless plenty—conveyed through the television set that flickers somewhere in even the poorest village. It is that constant reminder that makes today's poverty very different from that which existed 100 years ago.
	We have created a situation in which the very poorest are all too familiar with the world that they are missing out on while, at the same time, no similar message is grabbing the attention—let alone stirring the sympathy of—the world's wealthiest people; certainly the UK's wealthiest people.
	At UNICEF we try very hard to attract the attention of this important and influential group. By far the best way of doing this is by getting individuals of high wealth to give up a week, or sometimes less, of their lives to look at how the other half—or, should I say, the other 95 per cent—live. Those few that do so never forget the experience. It stays with them for life and, as often as not, affects their attitude to giving dramatically. I have also observed that they tend to feel a great deal better about themselves.
	Having spent most of my life as a storyteller, using film as my chosen medium let me end by telling the House of what I learnt during a recent visit to Nigeria regarding the dreadful issue of child trafficking. An all too common scenario would probably go something like this. A village that had been afflicted by AIDS would be visited by a trafficker, who would seek out the children of, say, a family of five or six children where both parents were dead. Ideally, he would pose as a relative, pick a 10 year-old boy and a 16 year-old girl and convince the rest of the children that he will take them off and get them an education, and that they will return to good jobs. It is not at all uncommon in Africa for relatives of the extended family to take such responsibility.
	But, far from getting the type of job the family had in mind, the children are trafficked north. En route, the boy is probably dropped off in one of the Gulf states, or even in Europe, to be a slave—a 10 year-old working 15 or 16 hours a day for food and lodging. If he is lucky he may escape after a few years.
	But the girl is a much more valuable commodity. She is brought, normally, through Morocco to Spain, across Spain into Europe—the destinations of choice most recently have been Greece, Turkey and Italy—where she will be effectively sold into prostitution. But not the kind of organised prostitution you see in the movies; she will be dumped at eight o'clock at night on an autostrada to be picked up by any passing lorry driver. It is to be hoped that she will make her way back the following morning to whatever house she is being forced to live in, only to return to the autostrada the following night.
	She will have been told that she owes the traffickers 45,000 US dollars—I do not know why it is always 45,000 dollars; the figure just kept coming up—and that that needs to be repaid because it represents the enormous cost of her illegal papers. So she will work for a year—maybe two—to repay the money. The day she has repaid it, she will not be allowed to go free; she will be "shopped" to the police because the traffickers do not want her as it were "freelancing" in their territory. So she will be sent back to Nigeria, probably to remain in prostitution, and certainly she will not be welcome in her own village.
	The story that I have described is commonplace. UNICEF estimates that more than 1 million children a year are being trafficked into slavery, prostitution or some other form of exploitation—some 100,000 from West Africa alone. As I see it, only an almost complete failure of imagination can explain the reaction to this story being anything other than an urgent and angry desire to do something—to do anything—that might eradicate that particular blight on humanity.
	Unless and until we, the comparatively wealthy, are made as aware of the distortions that exist in society, as are the dispossessed aware of our world of comfort and plenty, then the present decline in charitable giving is likely to continue. The lamentable situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, is unlikely to be reversed until we become far more imaginative. I believe the real issue here is an increasing poverty of imagination on the part of the wealthy, who fail to comprehend the true nature of the world in which they live.

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. His debate today enables a timely discussion of the current threats and challenges to, as well as the future direction of, United Kingdom charities.
	I should like to comment on three aspects and the connection between them. First, as a number of noble Lords have observed, there are the ways in which the Government can further help charities themselves; secondly, there is the increasing scope for partnership between charities and the Government if the latter should set out to work alongside them; and, thirdly, within the wider European Union, there is the new challenge to the role of charities and their partnerships, which is to enhance delivery and well-being at national and local levels.
	On government remedies to assist both large and small United Kingdom charities, not least is sound advice offered by the Institute of Philanthropy. Small charities are, of course, beset by two difficulties: under-capitalisation in the first place and borrowing restrictions thereafter. Clearly under-capitalisation would be less of a handicap if such charities could draw from a national fund for approved projects. Equally, with appropriate safeguards, the present Charity Commission's borrowing restrictions could now be relaxed.
	Does the Minister support the notion of that expedient as well as the establishment of a government capitalisation fund, also contributed to, perhaps, by the private sector?
	As the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, emphasised, evidence may indicate that future growth in overall figures relies upon large charities and affluent individual donors. If we matched the United States levels where individual giving amounts to 1.75 per cent of GDP, we would produce £17 billion, about two-and-a-half times what we give to charity now. Does the Minister therefore concur that we should seek to adopt similar incentives to those deployed in the United States in order to narrow the gap between its performance and ours?
	My second theme is that of charities and government working more closely together. Within all our communities we are only too familiar with the problem of young people and those of them who, as a result of drugs, difficulties at home and with school leaving, require to be deterred, guided and inspired into constructive purpose and away from crime.
	Certainly there are a great many charitable initiatives which set out to address this area. To their credit, the Government are trying to devise necessary solutions. However, to achieve proper results we should see many more informal yet focused partnerships between government and independent charities. Does the Minister agree? If so, what such joint ventures are the Government planning in order to reduce recidivism and to prevent young people turning to crime in the first place?
	My third point is that, within the wider Europe, a useful impact can be made by charities and their partnerships. No doubt the stronger the central bureaucracy, the more likely it is that funds will be prescribed and allocated for spending in an inflexible way. By contrast, improved practice and benefit will often more assuredly derive from flexible initiatives and partnerships at local levels. That is exactly where the relevance of charity partnership lies.
	During the civil war and its aftermath in the former Yugoslavia, we witnessed the achievements of non-governmental organisations in Europe. I declare an interest in my own small charity which works there and seeks to promote education exchanges with the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree that charity partnerships of different kinds, including those with national institutions and governments, should be encouraged within Europe? What steps are the Minister and his colleagues now prepared to take to promote this objective?
	In summary, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, stressed, much can now be done to increase significantly the UK level of charitable giving. Charities must retain their independence, yet governments should work alongside them much more. On that resolve depends enhanced well-being here and elsewhere.

Lord Moser: My Lords, I too express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for initiating this debate. The subject is extraordinarily important and also very difficult. I declare various interests on both sides of the philanthropic divide—in asking for money for many charities and in giving it away in the foundation with which I am involved. It is clear that life has got much harder for everyone. There are more charities around and things are getting much more competitive. The economy has been up and down and, in various ways, this world has become more tricky.
	I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Brooke, for mentioning statistics. I had feared that I would be the only one. The statistics in this field are disgraceful. One can piece them together from the various bodies involved, such as the Charities Aid Foundation and the Institute of Philanthropy, which probably does the best analytical and research work on this subject. NCVO and other bodies such as the CSO, or ONS as it is now called, are all active. As I said, the Institute of Philanthropy is quite energetic and rather skilful in its work and deserves every support.
	However, it is extraordinarily difficult to piece together not only the totals but the components of the philanthropic world in this country. Given its importance to charities and, indeed, society, that is something that should be improved. Perhaps the Minister can comment on the problem and come up with some brilliant ideas on how, by bringing all these different bodies together, the picture can be improved.
	The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, was very skilful in telling us about the situation regarding individuals, about whom other Members of your Lordships' House also spoke. I was glad to hear the references to the enormous strength of our foundations and trusts, something about which we can really be proud. There are some good signs, although perhaps not so much in relation to individuals. For example, in the arts world—as we know from Arts and Business, another excellent organisation—in the past year, giving has increased by some 8 per cent both from individuals and from the corporate sector. There are other pieces of this jigsaw where, if one digs very hard, one can find a reason for enthusiasm and optimism.
	I will use my remaining few minutes to talk about something that has not yet been mentioned in detail. I think that the greatest possibility lies in the corporate sector. I am aware that that does not directly fall under the term "philanthropy", as it is more partnership and support of various kinds. However, at the moment, 3 per cent of all charity income comes from the corporate sector. That is not a high figure. There is room for serious advance in this field. We should accept that giving by the corporate sector is not necessarily stimulated by the highest charitable thinking; it may be more a matter of competitiveness, corporate image or marketing. I find nothing wrong with that. I am happy as long as firms give to charities and get involved. There is real room for major advance in the corporate sector.
	Noble Lords will remember the 1 per cent club which was founded many years ago. Marks & Spencer and other companies were active in it. It was a simple idea. Each company gave 1 per cent of its net profits. It lost its energy and appeal over the years, so it fizzled out. Now, under Business and Community—another worthy organisation—the so-called PerCent Club is alive again. It is working very hard to recruit members. I am not sure about the latest figures, but something of the order of 60 to 80 companies are involved, out of countless thousands.
	Again, one is handicapped by statistics. I have looked to the Institute of Philanthropy for the best guidance. However, it looks as though only a small number of the very big companies are involved in very serious giving—perhaps 500 top companies give an average of just under 1 per cent per annum. One does not know how many smaller companies are active, because the information is part of net profits and does not have to be disclosed. There is a real challenge here and there are routes towards achieving it.
	Noble Lords will immediately wonder about shareholder concerns—about which I am of course conscious. Some shareholders would cut up rough if their distributed profits were reduced. On the other hand, some companies—I will not begin to mention names—are very active in giving and get away with it happily. The answer surely is that it must become a matter of serious corporate pride. It already is for a number of companies. It is often written about as something about which a company should be proud—about getting involved in the local community and so forth.
	The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, spoke about a change of thinking among wealthy individuals. I look for a change of thinking in the corporate world, so that giving becomes a matter of pride and of improving the corporate image, attracting graduates and appealing to employers and the local community. That is the direction in which I hope we will go. I hope that the government spokesman will comment on such possibilities.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, not only on moving this Motion, but on his chairmanship of the Giving Campaign. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I also congratulate my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his use of the tax system to create the generous environment for charitable giving. Certainly, people are encouraged to give if they feel that they are getting one over on the tax man. However, as the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Phillips, said, there must be a culture of giving in the first place.
	Tax incentives and the culture of giving need each other. I learnt that some seven years ago when I was trying to raise some money for a medical charity dealing with research in heredity and genetics. The research was being carried out at St Thomas' Hospital, just across the river. Through my membership of your Lordships' House, I was on nodding acquaintance with many hereditary Peers, so I organised a lunch, a presentation and an appeal here at your Lordships' House. The result was disappointing—very disappointing. The explanation was that the money was not theirs to give away; they were holding it in trust for future generations, as their fathers had done. That was the culture.
	Elsewhere in society, however, the culture is different. I have the honour to be president of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, which is an independent think-tank. Our task is to inform and influence policy, opinion and decision making on social and cultural issues affecting Jewish life. Central to this is the pattern of charitable giving among the community.
	Major surveys have been carried out in the past few years, and the results confirm many points made by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. Yes, 80 per cent of charitable donations come from 20 per cent of the donors. Yes, the more religious one is, the greater the proportion of one's wealth one gives away to charity. Interestingly, that applied to all causes: orthodox Jews are more generous to secular charities than non-orthodox. Perhaps that is an echo of the old tithing obligation.
	The research also discovered that young people today are less generous than older people. Perhaps that is in general because they are more secular and believe that the state should provide more support; or perhaps it is because we have the wealthiest generation ever of over-50s, and they can give more. We found the same pattern repeated in volunteering: the older and the more religious do more of it.
	The research seemed to show that giving is also linked to involvement and governance. There is no doubt that the increasing regulation, bureaucracy and legal responsibilities all act as disincentives to involvement. When people do want to become involved, they often set up their own small charitable institutions, in which they know what is going on and feel that they are less at risk from legal or social matters. Our research identified an amazing 5,000 charitable organisations in Britain within a Jewish community of some 350,000 people.
	We learned that family tradition plays an important part in a culture of giving. In some families there is a strong sense of obligation. Once that chain is broken, it is difficult to rebuild. That is why starting people early and educating them in the importance of charitable giving needs to be emphasised. Jewish schools and other organisations incorporate and emphasise that in their citizenship curriculum.
	To encourage a culture of giving, we are not urging everyone to become more religious, but we urge the community to build on what it has already achieved, with special attention to the young, to encourage people to do their own thing and to let many flowers blossom. And yes, we should target the top 20 per cent and the over-50s.
	I finish by dealing with the point that is often made that the decline in interest rates and the decline in the stock market partly explains the 25 per cent reduction in giving. That may be correct arithmetically, but the logic of the trustees is faulty. Professionals advise that trustees should give away the income but preserve the capital. Why? Here I must declare an interest as a trustee of a modest charitable foundation. When we were advised to reduce donations to preserve the capital, we thought about it carefully and decided to reject that advice. We felt that our duty was not to preserve a fund but to support charitable causes. In fact, we decided that we would double our donations and liquidate the fund over 10 years, confident that in that time others would come and take our place. We felt that was the right decision.
	The Government are right to encourage a culture of giving, but they should also encourage benchmarking, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for the duration of the fund as well as the amount of money given out. That will maintain the level of charitable giving which is such a civilising part of our society.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I should declare an interest as someone who has worked in the charitable sector and who remains a trustee or honorary officer of a number of charities. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, presents us with a living challenge; his life has been about not only putting money where his voice has been tonight but putting his life where his voice has been tonight.
	During my last year as director of Oxfam, I recall visiting Mexico and talking with a very courageous bishop who had been working with the Indians of Chiapas in a very fraught and difficult situation. We had a very intense and searching conversation, and two things from it will live with me forever. At one point he challenged me and said, "In Oxfam, you use the language of equality, but how equal are the people with whom you work in Mexico or how far are they the indispensable objects for your institutional needs?".
	The second thing that the bishop said to me was that the real meaning of charity was solidarity; it is identifying with those whom one seeks to help, not just impersonally giving them money. That relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, about the poor being more generous than the rich. The poor are closer to the problems, realities, dangers and hazards than the insulated rich, who are busy insulating themselves from those dangers and hazards. There is a lesson there. If I have one quarrel with my old friend it is that I hope that he is not suggesting that yet again leadership should be yielded to the rich in this area. It seems to me challenging and qualitatively significant that in our society it is the poor who are leading, and we do not want to discourage their commitment.
	We live at an interesting time. Increasingly, there is talk of charities and voluntary organisations being used as mainstream providers of social services. However, we need to beware of pitfalls in that direction. It could too easily lead to a subcontracting culture, with an adverse impact on priorities—whose priorities would voluntary organisations be following? On advocacy, would self-censorship begin to creep in for fear of upsetting funding? How will it affect public perception? Will the public begin to see the charities as government agencies?
	I believe, after a lifetime of work in this area, that the words that we should always associate with charity include words such as "challenge", "excitement", "pioneering", "innovation", "imagination", "originality", "creativity", "commitment" and "belief". Yes, additionality is vital, but the quality of that additionality is absolutely indispensable. When we think of our forebears in this place, we can see that Wilberforce did not make his contribution to the elimination of slavery because he wanted a career in the voluntary sector. He made his contribution to the elimination of slavery because of a passionate commitment to eliminating slavery. That is the key to successful charity and, I would argue, to successful fundraising. At the heart of it there has to be the passionate conviction of those involved.
	There are dangers in all the new management-speak and the new impersonal mass fund-raising techniques, which frankly fool very few when they are dressed up as personal by the new IT systems available. The concept of a donor base is hazardous terminology. Fundraising is not primarily about money; sustained and successful fundraising is about relating to individuals and winning their commitment and trust. Identification, involvement and stakeholding matter. They matter for the long-term success of the charity, but they are also a matter for the character of British society. They breed understanding, enlightenment and compassion.
	If I may just take one other example, I recall a quite difficult time in the life of Oxfam. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, will forgive my reminding him that he was my long-suffering chair and I was the director. We got into a controversial phase in our history. People questioned whether we were becoming too political because of our involvement in Kampuchea, the West Bank and South Africa. I recall that during that period of controversy the donating of our long-term covenanted donors increased. They felt that Oxfam was an organisation with which they were proud to be associated because it was prepared to stand up and be counted and was following through the logic of its commitment and its analysis.
	This is tremendously important as we approach the whole issue of fundraising. It is not just about how we get volunteers to work for us, or get people to give us money, it is about how we allow people to identify with causes in which they can believe.

Lord Best: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for initiating this debate and for the very important work he has been doing for the Giving Campaign. I declare my interest as chief executive of the charity, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and as a member of the Joint Committee on the draft Charities Bill.
	I should like to cover briefly two aspects of giving to charity. The first concerns young people aged 16 to 24, who may not have much cash to contribute but for whom a habit of giving can be hugely important in later life. Two years ago, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation undertook work with the Charities Aid Foundation to assist the work of the Giving Campaign to discover why there had been a decline over the past 20 years in younger people's participation in giving money to good causes.
	The first finding from this research by Catherine Walker and Andrew Fisher is that young people have a well-developed sense of what charity is and what charities do and they have a greater trust in charities than in government or business. But they define charity and giving more broadly than in the formal sense. Many are engaged in altruistic, socially responsible activity—"active citizenship"—that may not be counted under the formal banner of "charity". For example, they are involved in recycling their books through Oxfam, helping older people in the community, giving goods to charity shops, giving to beggars, buying Fair Trade goods and campaigning about social issues. Most surveys underestimate this wider contribution made by younger people.
	In relation specifically to giving to charity, the most popular form for younger people is through the sponsorship of others or involvement in company events, which may be sponsored by Comic Relief, Children in Need and so on, as well as events organised at their colleges, such as rag week. Much of this fund-raising is not measured by the current surveys or, if it is, it is not specifically attributed to young people but is attributed to their employers or other adults organising the events.
	The research highlights the willingness of young people to do more but also highlights a feeling that charities tend to ignore the younger donor. It is natural for charities to target the better off but today's younger people are the potential big donors of tomorrow. Young people are often willing and able to do more than simply put money in a tin, yet few know how to get engaged in the work of charities around them.
	The message from the research is clear. Charities need to realise that if they concentrate their efforts on those people with higher incomes, not only may they be missing out on a huge untapped resource of enthusiastic young people, often with passionate convictions, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but they may also be burning their bridges when it comes to recruiting those young people as the major donors of tomorrow. Surely more charities ought to follow the example of the best in devoting time and effort to the 16 to 24 year-old age group, by targeting advertising; sending out packs; working in colleges; offering opportunities to volunteer; and encouraging even very small donations which will inculcate a habit of giving to charity that will benefit that sector later.
	My second point relates to the many people who receive fees for serving on the boards of governmental bodies of different kinds. These include people on health trusts, on new urban regeneration agencies and on national and regional quangos. Although remuneration is paid to this new army of active citizens, few of them are in it for the money and for some of them the fees are something of an embarrassment. In governance terms, many people may prefer to be working in a purely altruistic way as their contribution to society. In some cases the individuals concerned are in full-time employment and, thanks to a public-spirited employer, they are doing their quango job in their working time. From these varied circumstances, there are many individuals who would be more than content for their payment from public funds to go not to them personally, but to charity.
	Having been down this route myself, I have discovered the problems in persuading the governmental paymaster to make payments directly to a charity account. There are complexities in an individual receiving a payment and then making a donation. Even when using the gift aid arrangements, one has to account for receipts and handle repayments of higher rate tax. All this imposes bureaucracy and barriers to giving. My suggestion is that, preferably in partnership with the Charities Aid Foundation, which provides its excellent charity chequebook facilities, the give-as-you-earn arrangements should be offered to every individual receiving fees for quango work. If just 10 per cent of those serving on quango boards opted to make their work wholly or partly a voluntary commitment, then millions of pounds of additional revenue would go to good causes. A simple form—which the Charities Aid Foundation tells me it would be more than happy to provide—from the appropriate governmental paymaster to all concerned would do the trick. I commend the idea to the Minister that this approach be offered and promoted to all those paid for their public service on quango boards. I suggest that this would help a little to influence the culture of giving and to meet the admirable targets for giving advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for instituting this debate. We thank him for all that he has done in charitable endeavour throughout his life. I should like to declare an interest as a giver, an asker and a holder-in-trust—that also is important. My interests are listed in the register. Two of the trusts set up by Joseph Rowntree are among them, and also the Community Foundation of Calderdale, which I started in 1991.
	We have had some splendid contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, did his best with statistics. Several noble Lords have mentioned problems with the statistics. We have to be a little cautious about them. I was struck by the point that the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, made about the poor. I remember attending a gala in aid of the Community Foundation of Calderdale. I spent the whole afternoon there. I realised that the people attending the gala lived in poverty. We ran a tombola stall or some other form of modest gambling and I remember thinking how awful it was that the people who were buying the tickets had financial difficulties.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, reminded us of the impact that the lottery has had. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, spoke of the Charities Bill. I hope that that Bill will be of assistance in this area. In the course of scrutinising the Charities Bill, perhaps something can be done, particularly as regards bureaucracy. I am hopeful that that will be the case.
	I am grateful for the contribution of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury and for his reference to materialism and the need to return to a more loving approach to others. No one has done more than him to encourage and point in the right direction those who want to be generous.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell made clear that certainly in his diocese the Church of England is concerned with rather more than saving souls. It is good that the Church is usefully involved in those wonderful subsidiary activities.
	The noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Judd, made useful contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the international dimension and pointed out that charity clearly does not end at home.
	The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred to the charitable sector and the Government working in partnership. I have some reservations about that. We must be careful in that regard. The noble Earl may be right in the context of certain circumstances. As I say, I was involved in setting up what is now the Community Foundation of Calderdale. When it was formed, it was known as the Calderdale Community Foundation. Its name was changed subsequently as people became increasingly fearful that it would be regarded as a subsidiary of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. That illustrates the fear on the part of the bodies that we are discussing that charities will be viewed as providing services that ought to be provided by municipal authorities or government.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moser, referred to the corporate sector. During the nine years that I chaired the community foundation I spent a great deal of time telling people, "You have done well in life, but you 'can't take it with you'. How about being generous to the community in which you live?" That takes a bit of doing, but I have done it on several occasions. Some of those people responded very generously. However, I did not manage to obtain corporate contributions. The people whom I approached were corporate people but they gave in a personal capacity, not through their companies. I wish noble Lords the best of luck in pursuing corporate donations. I hope that that culture will change.
	The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to people over 50 and donations from people who are perhaps better off. That was juxtaposed with the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who mentioned 16 to 24 year-olds. We must target both age groups. We need to target those who may become high earners as well as those who are already wealthy. The noble Lord, Lord Best, made the novel point that fees paid for public service could be donated to charity. I tell the noble Lord that I know of at least one councillor who has managed to persuade his local authority to donate his councillor's allowances to a charity. That can be done if the person concerned has sufficient resources to enable him to forgo his or her allowances.
	I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, referred to time. This matter concerns time, talents and money. I served for nine years in the community foundation, setting it up and chairing it. When I ceased working for the foundation I noted that I had more than 600 diary entries over nine years in connection with my work for the foundation. Then there are all the telephone calls on top of that. Many people put in hour after hour of toil—they have to. We must not forget that.
	Charitable giving has many forms. It might be 10p in a tin, or £100 million as the start of a new charitable foundation for someone who is very rich indeed. I want to talk about incentives for giving. I accept the point about love, but the British people appreciate nothing more than an incentive. It seems a long time ago that the only incentive for charitable giving was a seven-year deed of covenant. Now we have gift aid, give-as-you-earn and so on. Those were rather restricted when they started, but have been opened up. However, we are still an incentive short.
	We also have an incentive for someone leaving money in their will, in that there is no inheritance tax, but we are missing an incentive to bring forward the gift in the will into the lifetime. Therefore, the Minister might put to the Chancellor a way of bringing it forward so that there can be lifetime giving with a tax incentive. I suggest what I call a "lifetime gift inheritance tax exemption certificate". If someone makes a gift in their lifetime and it is properly certified, that sum should be available as a deduction from the inheritance tax bill on their death. Then they could be generous in their lifetime, while being able as testators to raise the level before inheritance tax was payable.
	Among the plethora of ideas, that could be looked at to bring forward giving of capital sums. All the amounts about which we have talked have basically been tax breaks on income, and I am talking about a tax break on capital. I hope that that suggestion was worth putting forward in this very important debate.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to take part in the debate. Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for bringing the topic forward today. I also pay tribute to him for his work in charities, not least most recently as chairman of the Giving Campaign.
	I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke for his forensic analysis of the 25 per cent mentioned in the Motion. I had tried and failed to replicate the calculations, but decided to gloss over that rather than admit to it. Now I feel able to admit to not being able to match the calculations.
	On these Benches, we are fully committed to a thriving voluntary sector. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell gave us a really good insight into what can be achieved through voluntary means. We believe that it is a badge of a healthy society to have a good voluntary sector through which people can demonstrate their responsibilities towards their communities. At the moment, there are some barriers to effective working in the voluntary sector, and we believe that the time is overdue for a reform of charity law. We welcome the fact that a draft charities Bill is imminent, even though we do not necessarily welcome all its promised content.
	The charitable sector could, however, be transformed without legislation if the Government were so minded. One of the biggest problems for charities is the bureaucracy that they encounter. Charities, like businesses, have significant costs imposed by rules and regulations. We have suggested "bureaucracy busters" who could curb the overzealous application and interpretation of regulations for charities, and would have powers to require fast communication and decision-making across government departments.
	I start this evening with the Government's interaction with charities, because the public sector is not only a source of burdens but a major source of the income of charities. Indeed, in 2004 the NCVO estimated that 37 per cent of voluntary sector income came from the public sector, which is a little higher than the 36.6 per cent from the general public. The Charities Aid Foundation's latest analysis of charity trends showed public sector funding as the area of big growth in charitable income among the largest charities.
	I am aware that some in the voluntary sector see that as potentially impairing their independence, which is why non-government income is so important to them. The Government's purse, coupled with compacts and codes, can be seen as resulting in subtle government control over campaigning and lobbying work—and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to that. Even if there is no overt attempt at control by government, there is the strong possibility that the end result would be the same. As my right honourable friend in another place, Mr Michael Howard, has said on this subject,
	"being smothered by an elephant is no less painful if there is no deliberate malice involved".
	We are absolutely clear that we will avoid the elephant trap of smothering the independence of charities. In particular, we see charities being able to gain presumptive rights to public funding as well as the control of public assets, so gaining the opportunity to improve delivery of publicly-funded local services without undue reliance on the provider of funds. That would be a more healthy relationship.
	Turning to individual giving, there has been an increase in real terms but it has not matched the increase in GDP, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, reminded us. I am not myself sure how much this matters, provided that the voluntary sector continues to grow. In the 10 years from 1991 the total income of charities grew by 78 per cent compared with GDP growth of around 70 per cent. Overall, the charity sector grew at a faster rate than GDP. Clearly the increase in public sector funding was a major cause of that.
	If one looks at giving, relative to GDP over a shorter time span than the 11 years referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, there is a nearer approximation between GDP growth and the growth in charitable giving, because the early to middle part of the 11 years included the introduction of the National Lottery, which, as my noble friend Lord Brooke has pointed out, confused the picture.
	It has for a long time been possible to give money to charities tax-efficiently and the Government's gift aid schemes and other innovations have made that easier. But even so, in 2001–02 tax-efficient giving amounted to less than 30 per cent of the total and so there must be more that could be done to promote tax-efficient schemes. In that context, it is a source of regret that the Treasury sees it as its mission to track down and destroy schemes that they say abuse gift aid, such as the entrance fee arrangements. Similarly, the ruthlessness of the Treasury in applying VAT to London marathon runners beggars belief. The Government are creating confusion—giving with the one hand and taking back with the other. Our tax incentives, while welcome, are not as sophisticated or extensive as those in America. My noble friend Lord Dundee referred to those and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, pleaded for a new and more sophisticated approach to tax-efficient giving.
	People in Britain contribute less than 1 per cent of their income and the charity sector looks enviously at the US where the average is nearly 2 per cent. But there are important differences between the UK and the US—the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, referred to the cultural differences between the two. One of the important differences is the relative tax burden. In the US the marginal rate is less than 30 per cent and in this country it is 40 per cent. Here, the overall tax burden is set to increase further under the Government's budgetary plans and we believe that further tax rises are inevitable if the British people give the Government a third term. Rising taxes are not a healthy platform for increased giving.
	There are other factors at work in our economy which inhibit the scope for increased giving. In particular, we have the,
	"continuing rapid rate of increase in consumer indebtedness",
	to use the most recent measured words of the Monetary Policy Committee. Personal debt is now over £1 trillion for the first time. It is not entirely clear what that borrowing is used for, but I will wager that it is not being used to support higher charitable giving.
	The proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, is that the rich should give more. Other noble Lords spoke to that theme, too. He drew attention to the fact that the poorest 10 per cent contribute proportionately more of their income than the richest 20 per cent. That may well be true, but it is also true that the charity sector is already dependent on the relatively small percentage of the population—around 5 per cent—who give about 60 per cent of the total. So there are some practical issues on how to lessen that dependence by attracting more high-level donors into that club.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moser, talked about increasing corporate giving, which is a relatively small source of total charitable giving. That may not be the magic solution; not all shareholders want the companies in which they have invested to make those decisions on their behalf. They would rather have the income to devote in that way themselves. It is not therefore easy to see that as necessarily the right way forward. My personal observation is that if we had fewer charity muggers—if charities sent fewer cheap pens through the mail and if more of them accurately addressed their requests through their mail-merge procedures—charities might do rather better.
	One can make anything of statistics and this topic is something of a minefield, as my noble friend Lord Brooke and the noble Lord, Lord Moser, said. I discovered the different definitions, timetables and problems when preparing for the debate. But the Economist of 8 May 2004 reported that the really rich are giving more. Based on the analysis of the Sunday Times rich list, to which the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, referred, giving in 2003 at £299 million was said to be 75 per cent more than the previous year. That has probably not yet surfaced in the charity statistics and so I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, ever so gently, that perhaps the problem is not as bad as it has been portrayed.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on introducing this important subject in your Lordships' House. I confess that I find it difficult to know what kind of speech to make in response. I would like to make a speech about social justice and charity, about the role of charitable giving as compared with collective effort through taxation policy and other social policies in well-being. Clearly, there is a role for both of them and, clearly, the boundaries between individual and corporate charity on the one hand and our collective responsibilities which we fulfil as citizens are difficult to define.
	I still have in the back of my mind the image of alms houses in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries with the names of mill owners on the front who thought they were securing their place in heaven, having been paying starvation wages to their workers all their lives. That colours my views, but then noble Lords would expect that.
	I also have a duty to defend the Government's record in encouraging charitable giving. I did not think that I would have to, but the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, can be guaranteed to bring party politics into any debate, so I shall have to.
	I have been impressed by the variety of experience, concerns and passions expressed in the debate and I am grateful that I have been able to listen to it. I was unable to go to the closing party for the Giving Campaign last week, but I know of the tributes that were paid to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for his chairmanship. The campaign has been a unique and highly successful partnership between government and the voluntary sector in promoting tax-effective giving. That success has been in no small measure due to the noble Lord. The Giving Nation project, which brings the issue of charities and charitable giving to schoolchildren in a very positive way, is an example of that. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about building on young people's understanding of the nature of charity is enormously important.
	I must also refer to the wording of the Motion, which talks of a 25 per cent fall since 1992 in charitable giving as a percentage of gross domestic product. I understand that that comes from surveys sponsored by the Charities Aid Foundation. I appreciate the difficulty of obtaining correct figures, but the ones on which I am most reliant, for reasons that I shall explain, are those produced by the NCVO and NOP surveys, which have been carried out over something like a 10-year period. I am reliant on them because it was my wife who set them up as the then vice-chairman of NCVO.
	Those surveys show that since this Government have been responsible, in absolute terms, giving by individuals has risen from £4.5 billion a year in 1997 to £7.3 billion in 2002. That is an increase of 62 per cent at a time when there has been a 29 per cent increase in GDP, and therefore one reaches a different conclusion. I appreciate that those figures relate to individual giving; they do not include legacies or tax-back devices.
	Incidentally, I did not really appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, talking about the tax system in relation to charities as being mechanistic. Anything that we do must be precisely defined, but I do not think it is any the worse for that.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, obviously I did not express myself very well. I was not referring to the tax system as being mechanistic. "Managerialist" would have been a better word—I was talking about managerialist ideas of increasing giving. I hope that the noble Lord will rest assured.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that. However, I have to say, even if I say it only to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that no government have done more to encourage charitable giving and support for a strong and independent voluntary and community sector than this Government. Whether the calculations indicate a decline or a rise in charitable giving, that must be the case and I shall have to demonstrate that fact.
	Of course, the 10-year period chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, starts from a low period in terms of gross domestic product. It is also true that during that period, so far as one can tell, there was an effect on charitable giving because of the lottery, which worked in two directions. There may have been a reduction in some kinds of charitable giving because of the lottery, but there was also a huge increase in charitable receipts from the lottery. If one weighs those two together, one comes to a rather different conclusion. If one takes into account that in 2002–03 the Community Fund distributed £350 million to charity projects, one realises the change in the outcome, if perhaps not so much in the motivation, of those concerned.
	Therefore, I do not think that the situation is as bleak as is implied by the figures in the Motion. However, I believe it is incumbent on all of us, including government, to give what encouragement we can in different ways to charities. I suggest that there are a number of ways in which things have improved.
	We have removed the £250 minimum donation for Gift Aid and simplified the procedures which mean that there has been an increase in gross donations from individuals, including deeds of covenant, from £1.8 billion in 2000–01 to £2.3 billion in 2002–03. We have removed the £1,200 annual ceiling on donations using payroll giving and introduced a three year 10 per cent supplement on donations. That has resulted in an increase in giving from £37 million in 1999–2000 to £86 million in 2002–03. That is very low. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, gave the figures for payroll giving: 2 per cent in this country and 32 per cent in the United States. It is still very low, but the incentives are there. There is tax relief for gifts of shares, securities and real property to charity.
	I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about the Goodison report. It is quite early to say but we have already started in this year's budget to extend VAT refunds to other forms of museums and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and others can expect more responses to the Goodison report in the months and years to come.
	The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Shutt, suggested that payroll giving should be offered to those who do quango work. It can be offered by any employer. There is no bar on that. Anyone who receives salaries or wages—quango payments are in the form of salaries or wages—through the pay-as-you-earn system, can have payroll giving schemes applied to them.
	Before I leave the individual tax side of Government's activity, I should refer to the leaflet which appears in all of our tax documents this year, Giving your repayment to charity—gift aided, which is a worth while innovation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moser, and others referred to corporate giving. Certainly, business involvement in voluntary and community activity works best when it is led by business. That is the approach by the corporate challenge. Businesses involved in the challenge are considering how best to increase awareness and spread best practice as part of the 2005 UK Year of the Volunteer. There have been more than 60 corporate challenge champions, who have come forward from a wide range of businesses to form a working group on this subject.
	Of very great importance here is Government direct financial support for the voluntary sector. I appreciate the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Shutt, in particular that there is a danger of distortion. If charities are really dependent on Government for their income, they may seek to maximise that government income by distorting their purposes rather than doing what they would otherwise have done.
	Nevertheless, there has been a very substantial increase in direct financial support which has been widely welcomed. As long as we are aware of the dangers, it is important to celebrate that.
	In the 2002 spending review, the Government allocated £188 million to the Active Communities Directorate in the Home Office, around £80 million of that directly in building the capacity and infrastructure of the sector to deliver even better services. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made a number of valid points on that. He asked about a capital fund for approved projects. There is exactly that in the £125 million Futurebuilders investment fund to invest in better ways of delivering services by voluntary and community organisations. That was launched earlier this month by the Home Secretary.
	We are also—this is a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—investing millions of pounds in the voluntary and charitable sector. There has been a growth in the value of public services delivered by the sector, from £3.2 billion in 1991–92 to £7.5 billion in 2001–02.
	My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley—and I do not want to congratulate her on leaving office, but to thank her for the service she has given to the New Opportunities Fund—made the point that obviously the National Lottery has had a positive effect on charity funding. Since 1997, a total of over £2.5 billion has gone into the Community Fund. In 2002–03 the fund distributed more than £350 million to charity projects.
	There are other possibilities, such as further tax relief. A number of noble Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Shutt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made reference to what appears to work well in the United States. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt—and I wrote it down—described it as a "lifetime gift inheritance tax exemption certificate". Bozhe moy, that is a wonderful phrase! I know what the noble Lord means, but surely when people in the United States dedicate capital to a charitable purpose, they still take out the income for themselves. They are still allowed to do that. I doubt whether it makes a great deal of difference whether they announce it in their lifetime or whether they leave it in a legacy.
	I am not certain that there are as many differences now as there were between the United States and this country in the kinds of tax relief available either for corporate giving or for individual giving. I think the differences in outcome are much more cultural than legislative. They reflect the fact—and I am not ashamed of this—that we have traditionally thought it more appropriate for some of the things which are done on a charitable basis in the United States to be done as a matter of civic duty through the taxation system in this country. If that allows the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to gloat about tax and spend, so be it; it is a price we have to pay.
	In conclusion, because I have less time available to me than appears on the Order Paper, I want first to express my appreciation to the speakers who lifted our horizons from this country alone to the world. Among those were the moving speeches of my noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lord Judd; and other noble Lords' speeches were of great significance. At the same time, although it is true that we have not reached our target—which has always been our target—of 0.7 per cent of GDP in aid expenditure, it has increased from 0.2 per cent to 0.4 per cent over the lifetime of this Government. That doubling is a significant increase and deserves recognition.
	I end by commending a speech by Stephen Ainger, the Chief Executive of the Charities Aid Foundation, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in his opening remarks. He, too, wanted us to have targets. He suggested that we should have a 1.5 per cent target of GDP for individual giving. I very much support that kind of target. He suggested that although there are these very significant tax breaks for charitable giving, it was a disgrace that charities made so little use of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made the point that only about 35 per cent of charitable giving makes use of what is available. The noble Lord wanted the charities movement and society to celebrate the achievements made by, for and with charities in recent years. I join in that celebration. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for making that possible.

Lord Joffe: My Lords, as a relative newcomer to your Lordships' House, I constantly admire the quality of its debates and the experience and wisdom of so many noble Lords, as has been so well illustrated by this debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken tonight. No one could fail to be moved by the appalling story about which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, spoke. I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for drawing attention to the importance of giving time, which is in every way as important as the giving of money.
	I am pleased that a great deal of attention has been given to statistics. It is clear that a great deal more needs to be done to improve statistics. In that regard, I should like to pay tribute to Cathie Pharoh, the director of research of the Charities Aid Foundation and Carl Wilding, the director of research at the NCVO, as they struggle to find their way through the haze that clouds those statistics.
	Whatever the statistics, I am clear that there is vast potential for the wealthy and well-off to give a great deal more to charities than they do at the moment. I thank the Minister for his usual thoughtful and detailed response to all the points that have been made. I assure him, as I did earlier, that I do not criticise the Government for not doing sufficient; they have given magnificent support and I was pleased that the Minister was given a campaign leaflet that arrived with his tax form, for which we are indebted to the Government for their continuing support of the Giving Campaign.
	In conclusion, although I agree with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, I do not share his pessimism about the future. I am optimistic that the culture of giving in this country can be changed, especially if the leaders of charities demonstrate the passion and determination that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has demonstrated throughout his career in the charity sector, part of which I was privileged to share. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Human Rights Act 1998 (Amendment) Order 2004

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22 April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the order is made pursuant to Section 1(4) of the Human Rights Act 1998. That subsection enables the Secretary of State to make such amendments as he considers appropriate to reflect the effect of a protocol in relation to the United Kingdom. The order is made to amend Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998 to reflect the ratification by the United Kingdom of Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The order will repeal the existing Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the European Human Rights Act and replace it with a new Part 3 containing Article 1 of Protocol 13. The ratification process requires the Minister with the main policy interest to lay an Explanatory Memorandum before Parliament for 21 sitting days prior to ratification, under the Ponsonby rule.
	On 2 April 2003, an Explanatory Memorandum for Protocol 13, signed by the then Lord Chancellor, was laid in accordance with the Ponsonby rule. The 21 sitting days expired on 19 May 2003 without a call for a debate.
	Neither Protocol 13 nor the amendment makes any practical difference to UK law on the use of the death penalty. As we all know, Parliament abolished the death penalty for murder in 1969. In 1998, Parliament made clear its view in a free vote that it did not want the death penalty for any offences, including military offences. The position reached on military offences was reflected in the Armed Services Act 2001.
	Protocol 13 supersedes Protocol 6, which abolished the death penalty for most purposes. But Protocol 6 permitted states to make provision for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war, or under imminent threat of war. Protocol 13 abolishes the death penalty in all circumstances. In international ECHR law, the provision for use of the death penalty in the UK during times of war and when under the imminent threat of war is abolished for all those who accept Protocol 13. Forty-two member states of the Council of Europe have signed the protocol, and 23 have ratified it. The United Kingdom ratified it on 10 October 2003.
	The amendment under discussion today simply formalises the position in terms of the Human Rights Act. It deletes the out-of-date Protocol 6 and all references to it, and replaces it with the new Protocol 13.
	As I said, the order means no practical change within the UK. It is somewhat of a belt-and-braces measure. It is the third layer of legislation under which we intend that the death penalty should lie buried. The first and most important layer, of course, was provided by Parliament's abolition of the death penalty. The second is provided by the international obligations that the UK has undertaken: first by ratifying Protocol 6 to the ECHR, and then by ratifying Protocol 13 to the ECHR. The third layer is this incorporation of our international obligations into the Human Rights Act.
	Although the order makes no practical difference in the UK, it gives further evidence of the UK's unswerving commitment to the campaign for worldwide abolition of the death penalty—a campaign in which the UK is in the vanguard. From time to time we are asked whether, in today's world, we should not review our commitment to human rights, and to the ECHR. We are told that times have changed, that new circumstances and new problems need new remedies.
	I would remind those who may ask that type of question that the ECHR was forged in the determination that the crimes committed by the totalitarian dictatorships in Europe during the Second World War should never be repeated. Of course the world has moved on since then, and in Europe, at least, it has moved on mostly—I emphasise, mostly—for the better. But that very improvement is due in no small measure to the determination of the peoples and leaders of Europe to build a better world, a determination embodied and encapsulated in the ECHR and now in the Human Rights Act.
	To return to the order, the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. There are no circumstances in which the state should be able to remove it. The United Kingdom's rejection and abhorrence of the death penalty are now firmly established in our culture. It is surely significant that even the most brutal crimes no longer arouse a clamour for its reintroduction. That is an indicator of how attitudes have changed since Parliament first abolished the death penalty for murder in 1965. I am pleased today to be part of that process of social improvement by helping to consign the death penalty to history. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22 April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Indoor Arenas) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 May be approved.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move the draft Licensing (Indoor Arenas) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, the purpose of which is to enable indoor arenas to apply for a licence to sell alcohol. It amends the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to include an indoor arena in the categories of premises which may apply for a licence.
	That will enable an indoor arena to sell alcohol to people employed at, or attending, events, provided that food and non-alcoholic drinks are also available. Young people under the age of 18 will not be permitted to purchase or consume alcohol, but they will be allowed to purchase food and soft drinks from kiosks that also sell alcohol.
	Opening hours for the sale of alcohol will be the same as for other licensed premises, with late opening to 1 a.m. available on certain occasions. A court will, however, have the power to attach any conditions that it considers appropriate to a licence. The majority of responses to the consultation supported the licensing of indoor arenas, and this change in the law will be welcomed. I beg to move.

Moved, That the order laid before the House on 10 May be approved.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for presenting that order so clearly. I had a few words with officials, being concerned about a bit of the detail of the order, particularly descriptions of an arena and various other small items. I assure noble Lords that they satisfied me completely that this is a wise and sensible order. I support the order.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I will be brief this evening, as the order is broadly welcomed by the Ulster Unionist Party. It is a sign of improving times that we are today debating licensing arrangements for entertainment facilities such as the Odyssey Arena in Belfast, when it was not so long ago that venturing into the city for a night out was an impossibility. The Odyssey, along with the many other bars, concert halls and restaurants that have sprung up not only in Belfast, but throughout Northern Ireland, is a symbol of our emerging confidence; of how far we have come along the road to peace and indeed, how far we wish to continue travelling on that road.
	That aside, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, the order removes the current barrier to venues such as the Odyssey Arena applying for a liquor licence under the present Licensing Order. It does not make sense to me—and it undoubtedly proves not only time consuming, but a huge administrative burden to both the Odyssey Arena and the courts—for the Odyssey to have to apply for occasional licences each and every time it hosts an event.
	We all wish to see the Odyssey, and other venues like it in Northern Ireland, continue to attract international sporting competitions, music concerts, plays, musicals and speakers. They are great for our image and excellent for our economy. The ability to buy alcohol is part and parcel of the whole entertainment experience. When does the Minister expect the legislation to come into force? What other arrangements have to be put in place to justify the delay?
	One aspect of the order that concerns me is the new clause relating to young people, which inserts new Article 52A into the 1996 order. While this was added following extensive consultation, and I defer to the judgment of those closer to the practicalities of the legislation, it strikes me as a somewhat precarious addition. While young people can currently buy goods other than alcohol from kiosks that sell alcohol at public transport premises, that is an entirely different situation to attending a pop concert or an ice hockey match. At an entertainment event the temptation to buy alcohol may be greater, and such a provision is therefore much more open to abuse than it is at a bus or railway station. Not only will young people have the inclination to produce a false identity card, but staff manning the kiosks will not have the time to check that each customer is over 18. We must remember that at a concert or the theatre, staff will be inundated with customers during the 15-or 20-minute interval. That is not enough time to police the legal requirements adequately.
	Has the Minister had any feedback on this provision? How does she propose that this will be better policed? What are the Government doing to encourage both a greater uptake of accurate ID cards which bear the PASS logo and impress upon retailers the need to ask for such a card?
	Recent speculation in the press has suggested that Northern Ireland will soon benefit from its own regional stadium. Indeed, if media reports are to be believed, we will soon have a stadium not unlike the Reebok stadium in Bolton. A regional stadium, where every sport can be enjoyed by everyone, is to be widely welcomed. I am glad that the Government are finally looking seriously at making this provision and seeking ways in which to make such a stadium more sustainable. I am pleased that appropriate licensing arrangements will be in place in time for the stadium's opening.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope I am able to answer the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. He paid me the courtesy of indicating the areas in which he might raise concerns. In answer to his question about timing, the introduction of the draft order by means of the commencement provision is required mainly for administrative reasons—namely, the making of subordinate legislation by the Department for Social Development and the Northern Ireland Court Service. That is also the answer to the process that will be taken up.
	Providing food and soft drinks are already available, an indoor arena will not require a children's certificate to enable young people under the age of 18 to be at a kiosk selling alcohol. I take the noble Lord's point about the importance of accurate ID cards. As all noble Lords know, the issue of compulsory ID cards is a matter that is no doubt to be resolved in a wider context before Parliament.
	It is important that young people under the age of 18 are not able to purchase alcohol. The courts will be given the power to attach any conditions considered appropriate to an indoor arena licence. They will have the discretion to react to any concern about the sale of alcohol from kiosks at certain events, such as those to which the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred, particularly those aimed at young people. The courts will carefully monitor the concerns that the noble Lord has raised. None of us wishes to see the facility being spoilt which is—and was recognised by those responding to the consultation as being—a wise and sensible one. I am quite sure all concerned with this will continue to monitor the situation carefully, not least the noble Lord, Lord Rogan.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 10 May be approved.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the order was made at Privy Council on 6 May and introduces provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Remedial) Order 2001. I hope it will be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on the order and say a few words about the specific provisions.
	The order makes legislative changes to address an incompatibility between the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The legislative changes place the burden of proof on the relevant health and social services trust to show a person held under the provisions of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 should continue to be detained. The 1986 order placed the burden of proof on the patient to show that they should be discharged. The order is designed to protect the human rights of patients and mirrors that already enacted with respect to the same incompatibility with the Mental Health Act 1983.
	Specifically in order to remove the incompatibility with the convention right, Article 3 of the order amends Article 77 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to provide that a mental health review tribunal shall direct the discharge of a patient if it is not satisfied that the criteria justifying detention in hospital for treatment continue to exist. Article 4 of the order also makes a similar amendment to Article 78 of the 1986 order.
	Due to the urgent need to remedy the incompatibility with the European convention, it has not been possible to carry out a consultation exercise. However, I hope that all noble Lords will agree that it is extremely important that we rectify that situation. I beg to move.

Moved, That the order laid before the House on 10 May be approved.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, again, I thank the noble Baroness for presenting the order clearly and concisely, as is her wont. In principle, I support the order for the chief reason that, once again, it brings parts of Northern Ireland legislation in line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
	I have just one observation to which I do not expect the noble Baroness to respond. I do not think that the quality of mental health care in Northern Ireland is anywhere near the standard in the rest of the UK. It has some way to go. Other than that, I support the order.

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, in general terms, I am supportive of this development, but I have one or two comments. First, in respect of one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mental health legislation in Northern Ireland—the Mental Health Act 1961—was different from the Mental Health Act 1959 for the rest of the United Kingdom, which was considerably to the advantage of psychiatry and patients.
	One of the differences was that people were not able to become compulsorily admitted on the basis of personality disorder in Northern Ireland, but they were in the rest of the United Kingdom. It took the rest of the United Kingdom some considerable time to catch up with the rather more advanced psychiatric thinking that perhaps was the case in Northern Ireland.
	Therefore, while I understand entirely the political principle enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about the importance of harmonisation of legislation throughout the United Kingdom, there have been occasions when the legislation in Northern Ireland has been more appropriate, certainly, to our circumstances and, I would submit, in some circumstances even in advance of the thinking in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	As regards the legislation before us, I am grateful to the Minister for indicating the purposes and the reasons for some alacrity. However, one needs to be a little careful about changes made with haste. One particular area concerns me a little; namely, that there are frequently occasions when patients are compulsorily detained because they are suffering from mental illnesses and they are a danger to themselves or others. That is of course perfectly appropriate. But in the course of their treatment, they may move from being a danger physically to themselves and others, through a period where they may cause other difficulties, and thence to a position where, it is to be hoped, they are well and able to be discharged from hospital.
	An example of that is patients who are suffering from a manic depressive psychosis. They might be admitted to hospital because they are a danger to themselves—from suicide—or a danger to others because their state of mind is disturbed, to the point where they might become violent if attempts were made to restrain them. That is not common, but it is frequent enough to be a problem. So the patient is admitted to hospital at the request of a family member—perhaps a partner or spouse—with a form signed by a general practitioner.
	As a patient is treated and he or she improves, the sort of problem that may still occur—perhaps in the case of a patient with a manic disorder—is that they are prone to spending large amounts of money without proper and rational thought. That can be devastating for a family, but it is not uncommon. There may be other ways in which the patient may not be a physical danger to himself or others, but, nevertheless, may have a substantial problem. Yet, it may be very difficult for them to be kept in hospital under the legislation.
	I do not suggest that we should not pass this order. However, I wonder whether consideration has been given by way of guidance to the Mental Health Review Tribunal that, in making its consideration of such difficult questions, it should formally take account and seek the views of family members who may have to bear the burden of someone in a quite still disturbed state of mind being discharged, but unable to be held because he is no longer a physical danger to himself or others.
	I do not think this is necessarily something that requires a change in the legislation, but it is a difficult problem. Very often such problems cannot be dealt with by legislation. But if there was at least a guideline requirement that not merely the medical attendants and other therapists and the patient and his representatives should be able to make their views known, but formal attempts were made to ensure that those others with responsibilities and who sometimes have to bear the burden—carers, families, partners and children—would also have the right to make their representations, then when the tribunal made its considerations, those matters would also be given due care and attention.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, my colleagues and I in the Ulster Unionist Party warmly welcome the introduction of this order to the Northern Ireland statute book. The legislation comes not a moment too soon and, in fact, highlights how unsatisfactory the Northern Ireland legislative procedure is at present, as this order comes years after legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom was amended to ensure that it complied with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	Our mental health review tribunals have been in the most unsatisfactory position as the discrepancies in the present legislation have been challenged in Northern Ireland's courts. Had they been successful, the mental health review tribunal could have been suspended, which would have benefited no one.
	The institutionalisation of people suffering from mental health disorders and mental illness is an extremely delicate issue. This order must not be just an exercise in legislative window dressing to ensure that the United Kingdom is in step with European legal provisions. The impact of this amendment must be truly for the benefit of the patients themselves and therefore must ensure that the individual's quality of life is improved through cultural changes in the mental healthcare sector.
	I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that it is wholly desirable that the "burden of proof" should fall on mental health tribunals as opposed to patients being reviewed by them. But the question I want to raise in the House this evening concerns exactly what this will mean in practice. What impact will this order have on the decision-making process, and to what extent will it improve or protect the human rights of the patient when it comes into effect? Is it the operational system or the legislation that is flawed as it stands, with the onus on the patient to prove that the criteria justifying his or her detention in hospital no longer exist and that he or she should be released? Ultimately, the mental health review tribunal will decide whether or not the patient has proved his case for release, so what will the difference be if the same tribunal has to prove that the conditions for a patient's detention still exist? One could be forgiven for thinking that this sounds vaguely reminiscent of Joseph Heller's Catch 22.
	I firmly believe that institutionalised environments should be the last resort as they often lead to increased dependency and loss of individual resilience among those receiving such care. The debate will be familiar to noble Lords. While this order is a welcome development, it must be followed by a review in practice to ensure that the legislative provisions are not being introduced to prevent legal challenges to the decisions reached by the mental health review tribunal, but rather to hone the decision-making process dealing with release cases so as to ensure that a culture of maximising patients' quality of care and protecting their human rights is nurtured and built upon.
	The mental health review tribunal undoubtedly does a sterling job in the most trying of circumstances, but case reviews must be properly regulated and scrutinised by the Government to ensure that the best possible care for the patients in question is available at all times.
	A related example springs to mind when ruling over this issue. Recently a young voter in Northern Ireland suffering from Down's syndrome was struck off the electoral roll. In Northern Ireland, questions can be raised over the decision-making process which determines whether one is fit to be included on the electoral register. Since the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, an individual form is now required to be signed by the elector, or where that person cannot sign, an attester can do so on their behalf with a reason provided as to why that person has signed on their behalf. If the reason is that the elector suffers from mental illness or some form of mentally incapacitating disease, the registration officer makes further inquiries by writing to the person who attested the registration form. If the response is that the person can make his or her own mind up regarding the conscious decision-making process involved in voting, then his or her name is added to the register. This response can be in person, by telephone, by letter or through contact made by the elector, a family member, friend or carer.
	This appears to me to be open to manipulation or mistake. During the 2003 annual canvass, the carers of 848 people indicated that they were incapable of taking an individual conscious decision and they were therefore not included on the electoral register. Does the House think that a telephone call or letter is a satisfactory assurance that someone suffering from mental illness should be added to the electoral register, or that the word of a carer should ensure that they are not included on it?
	These are questions to which the Government should pay attention, and quickly. I hope that this amendment order will help to highlight the debate and safeguard the well-being of patients in the mental healthcare sector, and not simply the status of the mental health review tribunals themselves.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, received most of the answers to his comments from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who is better equipped than I by far to respond to the points raised by the noble Lord. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, that it is important that we tackle the whole range of issues.
	I am a little concerned about commenting on an individual case when I do not have the details. However, if the noble Lord would like to write to me in confidence about the case that he mentioned, I am quite sure I shall be able to give him a detailed response. I know that noble Lords would not want to become involved in discussing an individual case in public.
	As to the noble Lord's point about the detail of procedure in different cases in regard to the mental capacity or stage of illness of an individual, even though he again did me the courtesy of giving me forewarning of his question, I am afraid that this is such a complex and sensitive area that I should like to write to him and send copies to other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The support of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is extremely valuable.
	As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, about patients moving at different stages in an illness from being dangerous to being a potential nuisance or difficulty to the people they are living with, obviously there are gradations in the process. I was a local councillor for nearly 27 years and often had to deal with problems between neighbours where a person's behaviour was bizarre to the point of disturbing other people's lives quite strongly.
	Again, I should like to write to the noble Lord on the subject of seeking the views of members of the family, particularly as we are dealing with an issue of human rights. There is an area of confidentiality between the doctor concerned and the patient and I should not like to go into that area without investigating it further. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, recognises that point.
	As to the query about why we are doing this now, the department sought legal advice as to the need to change the Northern Ireland order when the English remedial order came into effect in 2001. The advice at that time was that no change was required. The interpretation currently being applied to the 1986 order indicates that an incompatibility exists that the department has moved to redress. As a result of that incompatibility, it was important that we tackled the matter urgently. The 1986 order is subordinate legislation. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, recognised, there is a risk that the incompatible articles could be struck down, which would suspend the operation of the mental health review tribunal and remove the appeal mechanism by virtue of the powers of the provision. It is therefore urgent that we deal with this matter.
	I can assure the noble Lord that we are looking at some of the other issues that he raised through the regional review of mental health and learning disability, which has a number of sub-groups. One of those is the legal issues sub-group, and part of the remit of that group is to examine existing legislation in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights. All the issues will be carefully considered. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, will, if he feels that it is appropriate, make his views known during that review procedure.
	I understand that the burden of proof is one that, in practice, the mental health review tribunals have tried to operate, in terms of looking at the patient's interests and rights. However, it is important that the legislation is absolutely accurate for the reason that I have given. There is also a social justice working group, which includes human rights in relation to mental health orders.
	In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—I am quite nervous about answering him on this subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, recognises—many of the most vulnerable people suffering from mental health problems will be received into guardianship or cared for by their nearest relative. At the tribunal hearings, the nearest relative, for example, has the opportunity to have representation. However, I repeat my caution and the need to ensure that the rights of the individual patient are fully recognised. Guidance currently exists within the 1986 order to ensure that the persons detained have assistance in the management of their property and affairs. All related issues of that nature would be considered by the working group.
	I have tried to answer the points that noble Lords raised. I hope that I have satisfied them. I will look carefully at the points and will write to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and send copies to other noble Lords.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gender Recognition Bill [HL]

Bill returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
	House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past nine o'clock.